A new forum for all discussions regarding the Church's history.

[Elphaba]

I have done a lot of thinking about how many Latter-day Saints start threads because they want to discuss their love for the Church. Sometimes included in these threads are comments about the Church’s history that are factually incorrect.

Speaking only for myself, I do not feel good about this. I believe posters should be able to start threads about their beliefs without them being hijacked, at least from people like me who value historical truths, including the difficult ones many members do not know about.

The recent “Testimony of Joseph Smith” thread is a good example: The original poster meant for the thread to be a place for members to post about their love and gratitude to Joseph.

Unfortunately, some things written in the thread were historically incorrect, and thus a debate ensued wherein the original post was completely lost and ignored.

So I asked Heather if it would be appropriate to create a forum where people could discuss the Church’s history, including those aspects that are not faith-promoting. She liked the idea, and thus the forum called “ Church History” was born.

My vision of this forum is to allow an original poster keep the faith-promoting discussion intact, but at the same time give those of us who veer off into historical debates that arise from the original thread a place to continue the historical debate, without hijacking the original thread.

And, of course, anyone could begin a thread here about anything regarding the Church’s history. However, be warned that this forum’s intent is not only for faith-promoting historical incidents, though those would, of course, be welcome. But if you choose to write such a post, and a number of people disagree with your interpretation of the history, this is the forum to debate it.

This is not “my” forum.“ It was the best idea I could think of at the time. Therefore, all comments, suggestions, or criticisms, are welcome.

Elphaba

[pam]

I think this subforum is a great idea, however I am unconvinced that it will be allowed the free expression that will make it accomplish anything. Serious discussion of church history is inevitably going to end up in "anti" territory, which is a forbidden perspective on this site. I don't believe that it is possible for this section to be effective given the nature of this place.

Unfortunately I had the same thought as fent. Would become a thread for antis. I certainly hope not because a forum about Mormon history would be awesome. But I'm afraid I'm very skeptical. We shall see.

[pam]

Here is an interesting article posted on our news section about being cautious of news media and Church History.

Mormon Times - Be cautious about LDS history articles, Elder Oaks says

[Palerider]

I don't see this being positive at all.......

[Elphaba]

Here is an interesting article posted on our news section about being cautious of news media and Church History.

Mormon Times - Be cautious about LDS history articles, Elder Oaks says

It is misleading to use this article as a reason not to discuss the Church’s history in a message board forum.

Elder Oaks wrote the quoted article in 1985, referring to what he called the "adoring history" members had been taught for decades. He knew the professional historicans were on the cusp of delving into those difficult historical issues, and publishing them.

What Elder Oaks objected to was the printing of these incidents, as the media would pick up these heretofore unknown historical facts, take them out of context, or sensationalize them to put the Church in a bad light.

However, today, Elder Oaks’ is not as concerned about this today. In his interview with Helen Whitney for “The Mormons,” he said:

DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

. . . In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. .

. . . There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clearly Elder Oaks is talking about those who were officially publishing the Church's difficult historical truths, which he was afraid hurt the Church's image, as well as leading to members' apostacy. He was not referring to historical discussions on a message board.

I do agree with Elder Oaks that we must be very careful about the sources we reference. But compared to 1985, we have references that are far more in depth and reliable.

As an example, in 1985, Rough Stone Rolling would not have been well-received by any authority in the Church, including Elder Oaks.

But that was 1985, and this is 2008. In his appearance on “The Mormons,“ he told Helen Whitney: “Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. “

I seriously doubt Elder Oaks would even care about what is written on a message board. And for those of us who do research the Church’s history, there will always be people who recognize the tired old arguments and who will refute them.

On the other hand, there will always be clarifications of what really happened, rather than the white-washed history many members think is the truth. There is nothing wrong with clarifying these difficult historical truths. I do it often, and though I am often wrong, I still do it, and will continue to do it. And I know I am not alone in this.

Perhaps this forum would be better placed in the Open Forum. I don’t have a problem with it where it is, but with the negative responses, perhaps that is where it belongs.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Obviously people do not like the idea of a Church history forum.

So, does that mean when a person starts a thread that has nothing to do with the Church's history, but then it devolves into just that, there is nothing wrong with that?

Who is going to post anything about the Church's history on this forum that they would have posted anyway, albet on another thread where it doesn't belong?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Members could even jump the gun on would-be antis if they felt like it. >snip< so that people don't stumble onto something they don't want to see by mistake.

This is close to my vision of the forum; however, I did not want threads that question the Church's history just for the sake of doing so. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to avoid that. However, it happens anyway, so why not have a forum dedicated to those discussions?

Additionally, if a warning is needed, the forum probably belongs in the Open Forum. Unfortunately, I think these particular discussions would get lost there.

Heather and I did discuss where to put the forum, and since it is not faith-promoting we agreed it should go in the General Forums. But I didn't anticipate people's concerns that it would be a magnet for unwanted discussions. We also did not consider the Open Forum.

Just for kicks and giggles, I ran a few searches, and came up with these threads that, IMO, would now go in the Church History forum.

Mormons want their history inspiring but not sanitized

Unanswered Questions

I Really Want to Believe

I am conflicted now, as I thought people would welcome a forum that did not devolve threads into the Church's history. However, if people feel it is a bad idea, I will not feel bad if it is abolished.

Could we give it a try and see what happens?

Elphaba

[StrawberryFields]

I thought this could be a forum where we could discuss the "meat" of the church.

In another thread someone was saying that people when they are first being taught the gospel are not ready for the meat only the milk and maybe even fat free milk?

I hope we are coming into an age where the church and its teachings can endure the storms.

I don't want to talk about things that hurt people testimonies just the facts we are all asked and sometimes we don't know and need to stumble or refer them to the local leader....

We are living in the information age and yes people have the ability to do their own research but why not have a forum where these things can be discussed in a open respectful manner? Maybe the open forum is a better idea.

Are we ready for such knowledge here at LDS.Net?

[pam]

It is misleading to use this article as a reason not to discuss the Church’s history in a message board forum.

Elder Oaks wrote the quoted article in 1985, referring to what he called the "adoring history" members had been taught for decades. He knew the professional historicans were on the cusp of delving into those difficult historical issues, and publishing them.

What Elder Oaks objected to was the printing of these incidents, as the media would pick up these heretofore unknown historical facts, take them out of context, or sensationalize them to put the Church in a bad light.

However, today, Elder Oaks’ is not as concerned about this today. In his interview with Helen Whitney for “The Mormons,” he said:

DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

. . . In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. .

. . . There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clearly Elder Oaks is talking about those who were officially publishing the Church's difficult historical truths, which he was afraid hurt the Church's image, as well as leading to members' apostacy. He was not referring to historical discussions on a message board.

I do agree with Elder Oaks that we must be very careful about the sources we reference. But compared to 1985, we have references that are far more in depth and reliable.

As an example, in 1985, Rough Stone Rolling would not have been well-received by any authority in the Church, including Elder Oaks.

But that was 1985, and this is 2008. In his appearance on “The Mormons,“ he told Helen Whitney: “Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. “

I seriously doubt Elder Oaks would even care about what is written on a message board. And for those of us who do research the Church’s history, there will always be people who recognize the tired old arguments and who will refute them.

On the other hand, there will always be clarifications of what really happened, rather than the white-washed history many members think is the truth. There is nothing wrong with clarifying these difficult historical truths. I do it often, and though I am often wrong, I still do it, and will continue to do it. And I know I am not alone in this.

Perhaps this forum would be better placed in the Open Forum. I don’t have a problem with it where it is, but with the negative responses, perhaps that is where it belongs.

Elphaba

I didn't post that article as a reason not to talk or discuss Church History in this forum. I posted it merely for the fact that we had to be careful where our sources come from etc. That many sources are not accurate or correct. As you very well know from your own experiences and research. If I came across any other way it was a misunderstanding or not explained correctly on my part.

[Moksha]

There is nothing wrong with clarifying these difficult historical truths.

Elphaba

Good point. I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging difficult historical truths either.

[pam]

I'm willing to try it. I LOVE Church History especially since my mom's side of the family does go back to the early existence of the Church (latter days). I was just voicing my concerns of where I see it could possibly lead. I for sure would like to learn more.

[Guest ceeboo]

RUUUUT ROOOO,

Hey all, it's the " Catholic guy again " I guess I just couldn't stay away :) ( I have missed my new Mormon friends ):)

Anyway,

Not so sure this is a good idea??

Should be more than interesting though.

God bless,

Carl

[Truegrits]

Hey all, it's the " Catholic guy again " I guess I just couldn't stay away :) ( I have missed my new Mormon friends ):)

Found us a rather irresistible bunch, huh?

[pam]

Found us a rather irresistible bunch, huh?

Well at least we are..aren't we TG?

[Guest ceeboo]

Found us a rather irresistible bunch, huh?

Hi Truegrits,

That would be an understatement, I REALLY did miss you guys :) ( probably speaks volumes about me huh )

I tried starting a friendship with the customer service rep for my maytag stove but it's a long distance call and I am outta money, sooooo here I am back with you all.

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Ahhhhh Ceeboo! You are back! I am feeling so happy inside!

[pam]

I was pretty sad that you were leaving us so soon. I'm glad you decided to come back.

[Heather]

the first rule of the site still applies. I don't see a problem with this kind of discussion if church rebuttles and insights are always included, like info from fairlds.org. As I have said in the past, I would rather those who have questions find the answers here.

[candyprpl]

Elphaba,

I would love to learn more about Church history -- my only request is that when a historical fact is being stated that it be referenced.

When I started writing a lot of research papers, I realized quite quickly that I could spin a lot of facts to make my point.

I'm not afraid of the facts only how they are presented.

So Elphaba, let's get started!

[Bethie]

I love Church history and I'm looking forward to the "Joseph Smith Papers" project first volume coming out later this year. It will be fun to discuss it here.

Here's a question, I first learned about Church history from the fictional books of "The Work and Glory" saga. These books started me on my investigation and a desire to learn more about the Church and its history. My question is: Is The Work and Glory" series an acurate telling (though fictional) of Church history? If not, why not?

[Heather]

The Joseph Smith papers will be amazing. What an undertaking. They're suggesting it will be 30 volumes now. What an amazing resource it will be.

[BenRaines]

Work and the Glory is fictional through that time in history. Some items may be historical but it is a work of fiction.

Ben Raines

[Palerider]

Some of the best books I have read are....The Carthage Conspiracy.....The Papers Of Joseph Smith vol 1 and 2.....and listening to the lecture series on Joseph Smith by Truman Madsen...

[HiJolly]

Some of the best books I have read are....The Carthage Conspiracy.....The Papers Of Joseph Smith vol 1 and 2.....and listening to the lecture series on Joseph Smith by Truman Madsen...

I have these... complete with (a couple of) Mark Hoffman forgeries...

Loved reading them!

HiJolly

[Elphaba]

I have these... complete with (a couple of) Mark Hoffman forgeries...

Hey Hi,

Are you saying you have some of Hoffman's actual forgeries? Or are they copies in the book?

Thanks,

Elphaba