New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I agree with you that the situation is extremely complex but I do not think we have reached the point of absolute polarization.  The scriptures seem to indicate that there will be increasing polarization until the Second Coming.  Very possible there will be no third parties at that point.

Your statement here is VERY puzzling.  Are you saying I am part of the graft, back-scratching cronyism, general corruption, shadow government defiance, Globalist machinations, etc?  Please clarify.

I am a follower of thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, David Horowitz (former radical communist now self reformed conservative), Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlessinger, Adrian Vance, Laura Ingraham, etc.  I read a great deal of historical, scientific, a few novels, and so on.  But, I guess, I don't quite measure up to you?

In a word "no."  The world of extremism is too much with you, a world in which people swing from one extreme to another -- a world of newspeak and doublespeak, in which the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have only emotive meaning and nothing else.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Wait, Signature Books is considered "anti"?
I have enjoyed so many of their books, including ones by active members in good standing.  I wouldn't consider them an anti-Mormon organization.
As for "camouflage"?  I was under no illusion they had any affiliation with the Church.  Were others?

I agree that Signature occasionally publishes stuff worth reading, but far too much of it is deliberately anti-Mormon and not peer-reviewed.  However, I was quoting Robinson, not passing judgment on Signature.  You can read my review of one of their atrocious books at Interpreter, 8 (2014):195-203, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/if-there-be-faults-they-be-faults-of-a-man/ .  The same volume contains an additional review by Royal Skousen.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree that Signature occasionally publishes stuff worth reading, but far too much of it is deliberately anti-Mormon and not peer-reviewed.  However, I was quoting Robinson, not passing judgment on Signature.  You can read my review of one of their atrocious books at Interpreter, 8 (2014):195-203, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/if-there-be-faults-they-be-faults-of-a-man/ .  The same volume contains an additional review by Royal Skousen.

As an aside, I will mention that I had occasion to interact with Ron Priddis and Gary Bergera, two of the principals with Signature, at the recently concluded Mormon History Association Conference in St. Louis. I had never met either, though I had seen and heard their names quite a bit over the years. I found both to be quite personable.

We never got beyond the small-talk stage, however.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Sounds pretty disjointed.  I have pointed out the there is a critical small middle third that can sway elections between the two polar sides.  I have also pointed out that the traditional values crowd are not as united and coordinated like the hard left.

You say I have "irrationally" lumped Communists with the Democrats?  You probably have heard that Obama grew up in a family of communist enthusiasts (both his parents plus the grandparents). His mentors include Frank Marshall Davis, Paul Robeson, Henry Wallace, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, etc.  His administration was chock full of communists such as Van Jones, Carol Ruth Browner, Ann Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Ezekiel Emanuel (very scary beliefs), John Holdren, Cathy Zoi, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, etc.  Sure sounds like Democrats (and many Republicans) marching in locksteps with Communists.

Does not seem like you have your thinking cap securely snug on your noggin.  

 

58 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Boy, I didn't realize the Red Scare was back...

ETA: I blame it all on Valentinus.  First, he will take over this board, next the world.

Against my better judgment I am going to enter this small fray of politics to say that the Democrats attract communists and socialists because of their new chosen politics of equal/"just" social results. They want to make the outcome for everyone the same in the economy. Thus, everyone will receive the same medical care, the same retirement, the same wages, etc - unless of course they are the Democrats in Congress.... This is the same pipe dream of communism and socialism. The difference being there is just no way to make our constitutional republic a true socialist or communist state since that involves the government seizing or taking control of all assets. So the Democrats are now seeking to do it in the round about way of taxation and redistribution of income, and are trying to get enough immigrants into the country who will vote for this redistribution(to themselves). Hillary Clinton's rhetoric reeks of it. This system is really already failing in Europe, and the Democrats want to make the US like Europe... Hey, I say if it is so good, move there. 

Forcing the most talented and hard-working segment of the people to be like everyone else will destroy not only the promise of freedom in the constitution, but the principles of capitalism, and ultimately destroy the prosperity it produces. Not that it really matters at this point.... 

Taxation should be to provide services to the people as a whole... not to redistribute property. The latter is merely an indirect way of practicing socialism or communism. That is why it attracts socialist and communist ideologues. Europe has shown that as it continues, prosperity and growth stagnate. The way Europe has dealt with less prosperity is to have fewer children, and they are now on the path to implosion. Nevertheless, the United States is only a few million people away from this ideology indeed taking over the world. At that point I suspect the world will see the image of the beast in its full "glory." 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see anyone doing that here. If some are doing it, either here or elsewhere, you should take it up with them.

Would you have people cease to use the term altogether, even when it can be applied accurately? That strikes me as political correctness, which I fervently detest. Some people are obviously anti-Mormon and ought to be identified as such.

 

Whether or not the intent is difficult to ascertain (and I submit that in a great many instances, it is quite obvious) the matter of intent is in theory a key component in the definition. Would you deny that it is?

Intent is a legal criterion in determining criminal culpability. It often makes all the difference in determining whether an incident is an accident or a crime. This is so, whether or not the intent is difficult to ascertain. It is such an important criterion that trials are held to determine it.

Likewise it is a reasonable consideration in determining anti-Mormonism.

 

Why do you feel the necessity to use the term and put it in your tagline? I don't like political correctness either but I don't think use or non-use has anything to do with political correctness and everything to do with message control. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This system is really already failing in Europe, and the Democrats want to make the US like Europe... Hey, I say if it is so good, move there. 

"America, love it or leave it!"

I guess the Red Scare really is back...

ETA: I won't respond anymore to this political tangent, because it is a derail and it probably is counter to the forum rules. Longview and RevTestament, you can have the last words

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As an aside, I will mention that I had occasion to interact with Ron Priddis and Gary Bergera, two of the principals with Signature, at the recently concluded Mormon History Association Conference in St. Louis. I had never met either, though I had seen and heard their names quite a bit over the years. I found both to be quite personable.

We never got beyond the small-talk stage, however.

Yes, Priddis and Bergera are old friends of mine from back in their BYU days.  I have never had a harsh word with either one.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why do you feel the necessity to use the term and put it in your tagline? I don't like political correctness either but I don't think use or non-use has anything to do with political correctness and everything to do with message control. 

Denying in effect the existence of anti-Mormons has everything to do with message control -- and propagnada and political correctness.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, Priddis and Bergera are old friends of mine from back in their BYU days.  I have never had a harsh word with either one.

My impression is that either or both would be good company at a backyard barbecue.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

"America, love it or leave it!"

I guess the Red Scare really is back...

ETA: I won't respond anymore to this political tangent, because it is a derail and it probably is counter to the forum rules. Longview and RevTestament, you can have the last words

 

Getting us back on topic, do you think you would be interested in reading the new four-volume history when it comes out beginning next year, MisereNobis?

[Avatar4321]

On 6/8/2017 at 0:46 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, and no.

Religion is obviously different than national citizenship even though there is significant trust put in both. In the US there is a healthy skepticism of the government and protections put in place to make sure the government doesn't overstep its authority. There is a competition of ideas. There is a freedom to question and debate. There is a great openness in seeking information. Those things don't exist in the church.

Instead of a healthy skepticism of leadership, any expectation of accountability is replaced by a call for faith and obedience to the church and its leaders as they represent God and His Kingdom. So an American citizen has more opportunity to appropriately seek information and question authority but in the church that is viewed as unfaithful. Government leaders don't proclaim that they are speaking directly for God and leading the people to eternal salvation. The church does. So the expectation of faith and trust in church leaders is much more ingrained and even required.

So when a church leader, who speaks for God, tells you to follow the prophet who is not sharing the complete/accurate story, then faith and trust in the leader and the institution claim an inordinate amount of control and power over a person's life.

BUT you are right that people shouldn't expect to be spoon fed by the church. I shouldn't accept or follow everything blindly like I once did. So I've learned my lesson to temper my level of trust and faith in leaders and the institution. I won't make that mistake again, but it's sad and unfair to blame a person for having the faith and trust they were urged to have. Lesson learned.

I've never seen anyone in church even suggest seeking more information is being unfaithful. In fact it's quite the opposite we are encouraged to learn and seek truth for ourselves.

And we aren't taught to put faith in our Church leaders. We are taught to put our faith in Christ.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Denying in effect the existence of anti-Mormons has everything to do with message control -- and propagnada and political correctness.

Of course there are people against the church just like there are those who are against the former members and the questioners.  So why do you feel it necessary to do the labeling when it really doesn't mean anything? Either your church is true or not. Labeling the non-believer won't change that.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course there are people against the church just like there are those who are against the former members and the questioners.  So why do you feel it necessary to do the labeling when it really doesn't mean anything? Either your church is true or not. Labeling the non-believer won't change that.

I wonder how missionaries/leaders feel when new converts doubt their old religion? They probably think it's awesome. Doubt is bad on one hand and good on the other. 

Labeling people anti Mormon, could just be a way to scare LDS away from the doubters/questioners.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Tacenda

[longview]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In a word "no."  The world of extremism is too much with you, a world in which people swing from one extreme to another -- a world of newspeak and doublespeak, in which the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have only emotive meaning and nothing else.

What utter nonsense!  I am a principled conservative.  CFR on where I have swung from "one extreme to another."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how missionaries/leaders feel when new converts doubt their old religion? They probably think it's awesome. Doubt is bad on one hand and good on the other. 

Labeling people anti Mormon, could just be a way to scare LDS away from the doubters/questioners.

It's obviously one sided

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Getting us back on topic, do you think you would be interested in reading the new four-volume history when it comes out beginning next year, MisereNobis?

While I'm sure there are interesting things in the history, I'm not sure I'd commit to reading a four-volume work.  I know, I know, call me lazy, but that is quite a bit of reading to devote my precious reading time to.  I imagine I'll be able to catch the highlights here at this board.  I feel like the most interesting part of this new history is how it deals with the controversial aspects of LDS history, but since I'm not LDS that is not as pressing to me.

Can someone write a fair history of the LDS church without being either for or against the church?  Has that happened yet?  Obviously this new publication is church approved, so there will be bias, just like an "anti" history would have bias.  I'm wondering if things have reached a point where scholarly historians can write objectively about LDS church history, like most do about Catholic church history.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, longview said:

What utter nonsense!  I am a principled conservative.  CFR on where I have swung from "one extreme to another."

I was thinking more of some of those you listed, who have swung from the extreme left to the extreme right -- as with Ronald Reagan, for example.  There is no substance to such emotional and jarring shifts, and there is no such thing as a "conservative" or a "liberal."  In the end, it has more to do with the totalitarian temptation which one sees in an Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi -- that is all the extreme left and extreme right have to offer.  In the rush to smite enemies, the principles of justice, tolerance, and love are left behind in the dirt.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

...................................................

Can someone write a fair history of the LDS church without being either for or against the church?  Has that happened yet?  Obviously this new publication is church approved, so there will be bias, just like an "anti" history would have bias.  I'm wondering if things have reached a point where scholarly historians can write objectively about LDS church history, like most do about Catholic church history.

Methodist scholar Jan Shipps has written some very incisive and objective Mormon history, and Richard Bushman has spent his life writing as objectively about Mormons as he has about American Colonial history -- even though he is a believing Mormon.  In addition, Mormon scholars like Terryll Givens and Grant Hardy have published a whole series of substantial books through Oxford University Press.  So there is reason for hope.  I'm just not sure that in-house productions can be as dispassionate and objective (requiring some sort of LDS imprimatur and nihil obstat).

Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (1985).

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

(requiring some sort of LDS imprimatur and nihil obstat).

While some deride the imprimatur and nihil obstat, I think they serve the purpose of letting people know that you are reading the approved Catholic version of things.  It also gives you the exact names of the people who approved the writings, which is useful, too.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

While I'm sure there are interesting things in the history, I'm not sure I'd commit to reading a four-volume work.  I know, I know, call me lazy, but that is quite a bit of reading to devote my precious reading time to.  I imagine I'll be able to catch the highlights here at this board.  I feel like the most interesting part of this new history is how it deals with the controversial aspects of LDS history, but since I'm not LDS that is not as pressing to me.

Can someone write a fair history of the LDS church without being either for or against the church?  Has that happened yet?  Obviously this new publication is church approved, so there will be bias, just like an "anti" history would have bias.  I'm wondering if things have reached a point where scholarly historians can write objectively about LDS church history, like most do about Catholic church history.

From my point of view, there is no such thing as an objective history

All of history is interpretation just like everything else.

Often alleged eyewitnesses in court do not get it right on simple facts much less being able to assess the nuances of another's motivations or the causes of social trends.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Against my better judgment I am going to enter this small fray of politics to say that the Democrats attract communists and socialists because of their new chosen politics of equal/"just" social results. They want to make the outcome for everyone the same in the economy. Thus, everyone will receive the same medical care, the same retirement, the same wages, etc - unless of course they are the Democrats in Congress.... This is the same pipe dream of communism and socialism. The difference being there is just no way to make our constitutional republic a true socialist or communist state since that involves the government seizing or taking control of all assets. So the Democrats are now seeking to do it in the round about way of taxation and redistribution of income, and are trying to get enough immigrants into the country who will vote for this redistribution(to themselves). Hillary Clinton's rhetoric reeks of it. This system is really already failing in Europe, and the Democrats want to make the US like Europe... Hey, I say if it is so good, move there. 

Forcing the most talented and hard-working segment of the people to be like everyone else will destroy not only the promise of freedom in the constitution, but the principles of capitalism, and ultimately destroy the prosperity it produces. Not that it really matters at this point.... 

Taxation should be to provide services to the people as a whole... not to redistribute property. The latter is merely an indirect way of practicing socialism or communism. That is why it attracts socialist and communist ideologues. Europe has shown that as it continues, prosperity and growth stagnate. The way Europe has dealt with less prosperity is to have fewer children, and they are now on the path to implosion. Nevertheless, the United States is only a few million people away from this ideology indeed taking over the world. At that point I suspect the world will see the image of the beast in its full "glory." 

Thanks for your post.  It gives me real insight into how the far right think about Democrats and politics.  It is such a different view to what I believe in and quite frankly live around in California.  I feel really blessed to have been able to start a business and earn a good living for many years.  Society and the government helped me make that possible.  No one likes paying taxes.  But I do realize that not everyone has had the opportunities that I have had in my life.  For me, it is part of living in the great state of California.  Providing some base line care for all is a concept I am committed to and is actually an extension of how I feel about Christ.  I rarely give to a homeless person on the street.  For the most part, religion has walked away from feeding the poor.  Private groups like Project Open Hand have stepped up to fill those needs.  Some of the money they get to run their program comes from government grants.  Most of it comes from private donations.  I feel pouring more resources into things like soup kitchens and shelters is a more efficient way of serving the poor.  I have a clear belief that the money I give through these programs is going for basic needs and  not harmful drugs that only trap the poor.  Is that a communist or socialist idea?  Yeah probably more than a strict capitalist idea.  I don't really care what label is put on it.  I feel better that the poor are getting some help.  Most of which come from other states that do not have these kinds of basic support for them.  I am not saying that everything is perfect in how California takes care of the poor.  But for the most part, I think the state does a good job of managing this very human need.

The people of California must agree with me.  There is not a single state wide office held by a Republican.  That is not to say that other states are just as red with not a single Democrat holding state wide office.  Isn't it great that we have a choice of where we live in this great country.

 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've never seen anyone in church even suggest seeking more information is being unfaithful. In fact it's quite the opposite we are encouraged to learn and seek truth for ourselves.

And we aren't taught to put faith in our Church leaders. We are taught to put our faith in Christ.

The church also teaches that church leaders speak for God and know His will.  Many times, that is simply not true.  Sometimes that is a hard lesson for members to learn.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

While I'm sure there are interesting things in the history, I'm not sure I'd commit to reading a four-volume work.  I know, I know, call me lazy, but that is quite a bit of reading to devote my precious reading time to.  I imagine I'll be able to catch the highlights here at this board.  I feel like the most interesting part of this new history is how it deals with the controversial aspects of LDS history, but since I'm not LDS that is not as pressing to me.

Can someone write a fair history of the LDS church without being either for or against the church?  Has that happened yet?  Obviously this new publication is church approved, so there will be bias, just like an "anti" history would have bias.  I'm wondering if things have reached a point where scholarly historians can write objectively about LDS church history, like most do about Catholic church history.

You are, of course, entitled to read or not read anything you like.

That said, I find your response remarkable. I've told you I'm indifferent toward Catholicism. Yet I would jump at the chance to read a four-volume, comprehensive history of the Catholic church, especially if I could access it free online or even obtain it in an inexpensive paperback edition, and especially if I were in the habit of going on Catholic-oriented message boards and commenting. I would want to have a reasonably solid base of knowledge to ensure I knew what I was talking about.

And it would be all the more appealing to me if the multi-volume history were published by the Catholic church itself. By definition, the content would thus be authoritative, and I would be at least as interested in receiving an authoritative message as I would be one filtered through the lens of some critic or antagonist or apostate.

The length of the history would not be a deterrent to me. I'm by nature a rather slow reader anyway, and I don't put deadlines on my reading, unless I'm taking a college course or something. I like to take time to ponder and absorb.

Yes, I would be interested in the controversies, but I would be just as interested in the more benign aspects of the history. I anticipate that there are likely aspects of the Catholic religious experience that I would like to adopt as my own. Krister Stendahl, the now-deceased bishop of the Lutheran church in Stockholm, called that attitude "holy envy." I fully endorse it.

Right now, I'm reading the multi-volume collected writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, even though I believe the authority and keys to administer the church of Jesus Christ were lost from the earth even before days of the ante-Nicene Fathers. I have found, nonetheless, that the bulk of what they wrote resonates with me and is consistent with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Note: Lest some be confused, the prefix ante- does not mean the same thing as anti-. Ante- means before or prior to, so the ante-Nicene Fathers would be the church fathers who were around prior to the adoption of the Nicene Creed.

[Scott Lloyd]

california boy has joined the thread. That means its closure cannot be too far off. Everyone, better get your posts made before that happens.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course there are people against the church just like there are those who are against the former members and the questioners.  So why do you feel it necessary to do the labeling when it really doesn't mean anything? Either your church is true or not. Labeling the non-believer won't change that.

Because it is a perfectly serviceable term to identify some individuals, and I am all about retaining options in my vocabulary.

Why don't you level with us? Your lecturing is leading up to telling us we should eliminate the term anti-Mormon from our vocabulary, isn't it? It's about political correctness, which, in turn, is about controlling the message.

Labels are misapplied all the time. Doesn't meant they should be eliminated. The term white supremacist has been unjustly applied ad nauseam from the recent presidential election on into the current administration. Yet that doesn't mean the term should be eliminated. There are, in fact, white supremacists to whom the term accurately applies.