Accurate Church History as Inoculation

[Moksha]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

[Elphaba]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

I enjoyed this discussion from By Common Consent, written in response to the PBS "The Mormons." It discusses innoculation from the Church's difficult aspects of its history.

By Common Consent “The Mormons” and Inoculation

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

This is no different that teaching about the Bible. If you raise your children with a "God is like a big loving telitubbie" way of thinking, and then they read the Old Testament about all the ethnic cleansing the Hebrews did as well as the Mosaic Laws and penalties then your kids could easily have their faith shaken.

If you don't deal with controversial issues in the Church (and by controversial I do not mean bad or embarassing in a scriptural sense but a societal sense) then you risk losing people.

[Fiannan]

Yeah the Old Testament is the best antimormon (or antichristian) material out there... I didn't get very far before I decided I didn't much care for your God.

What turned you off? In regards to the first five books of the Old Testament one has to examine why God commanded the things He did. Again, this gets back to how you react when you see a lion eat a baby gazelle -- you can detest the lion or you can understand the balance of nature process. I suspect many with the former gut reation might react the same to the Old Testament.

[NeuroTypical]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Being aware of facts can help you quite a bit when someone tries to twist them and throw them at you out of context and surrounded by agenda-driven unwarranted leaps of logic and uncharitable assumptions.

Knowing stuff helps in quite a lot of areas of life - LDS-related areas being one of them. I'm a big fan of knowing things.

LM

[FunkyTown]

Yeah the Old Testament is the best antimormon (or antichristian) material out there... I didn't get very far before I decided I didn't much care for your God.

I actually loved the Old Testament. It was the reason I joined the church. God is an unchanging God, so one would suspect that the same things he did in the Book of Mormon were what he did in the New and Old Testament.

Was the old testament violent? Sure. That was what the times were like. Were there reasons for every commandment? Yes. Just as assuredly as the end times will be violent because unbelief and apathy have forced a loving God's hand to shake us from the sleep of ages, the beginning of the age of man was marked by unbelief that needed to be shaken. "Better that a man should perish than a nation should dwindle in unbelief."

There were also many acts of beauty and wonder in the old testament.

[pam]

I understand that lions need to eat. Try to keep in mind the years I have spent working in a slaughterhouse. I've watched animals dying, each one looking directly into my eyes. I've seen them dismembered. I've seen how their faces still twitch for a good while after they are dead and most of their bodies are missing. Death is a sad part of life, but it's necessary. I still eat meat, by the way... but not wastefully.

I think it should be clear enough why someone might have problems with the God of the Old Testament, so I will leave it at that. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not interested in going over the reasons why I lost my faith.

Isn't the God of the Old Testament the same God that existed during the New Testament, the Book of Mormon and even exists today?

[Palerider]

I love reading the Old Testament.....never thought of it as anti

[HiJolly]

You all believe that, yes. But since youi're asking me, no, I don't believe it. The following is all my opinion, which you just asked me for, so don't get mad if you disagree or don't like it :)

I believe that the God of the Old Testament was either invented by the Jews, (along with a great deal of the OT itself, and their own ancient history) or more likely evolved from others... deities tend to get passed off and recycled from culture to culture over time like that. For example, Inanna becomes Ishtar, who becomes Aphrodite and so on.

In my opinion, the New Testament is the result of a bunch of guys retconning their particular saviour-based brand of religion so that it kind of matched up with some stuff said in the OT. There were so many saviours around to choose from that the NT authors felt it necessary to bash the others and proclaim their own Jesus to be the real one. It just happenned that Christianity won out by getting endorsed by the Roman emperor. It could have been Mithra instead, for example, but it wasn't.

In my opinion, the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination after having read books with similar themes that were owned by his friends.

So in my opinion, the God worshipped by the ancient Jews, the God worshipped by the mainstream Christians, and the God worshipped by the LDS, are no more the same than the assorted gods and goddesses that modern pagans choose to worship are to their ancient equivalents. Like culture, mythology changes over time.

Hmmm... Sounds kinda like Bart Ehrman meets Dan Vogel...

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

You will find that the church will write more of a positive light vice adding any negativism to any history.

I would imagine there is much history account on what really did transpired in the OT and what was deleted from being added.

[Islander]

You all believe that, yes. But since youi're asking me, no, I don't believe it. The following is all my opinion, which you just asked me for, so don't get mad if you disagree or don't like it :)

I believe that the God of the Old Testament was either invented by the Jews, (along with a great deal of the OT itself, and their own ancient history) or more likely evolved from others... deities tend to get passed off and recycled from culture to culture over time like that. For example, Inanna becomes Ishtar, who becomes Aphrodite and so on.

In my opinion, the New Testament is the result of a bunch of guys retconning their particular saviour-based brand of religion so that it kind of matched up with some stuff said in the OT. There were so many saviours around to choose from that the NT authors felt it necessary to bash the others and proclaim their own Jesus to be the real one. It just happenned that Christianity won out by getting endorsed by the Roman emperor. It could have been Mithra instead, for example, but it wasn't.

In my opinion, the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination after having read books with similar themes that were owned by his friends.

So in my opinion, the God worshipped by the ancient Jews, the God worshipped by the mainstream Christians, and the God worshipped by the LDS, are no more the same than the assorted gods and goddesses that modern pagans choose to worship are to their ancient equivalents. Like culture, mythology changes over time.

Great, now that we know where you stand I would like to thank you for your contribution thus far. Further postings will not be necessary. It is evident you have no interest of any kind in anything the forum has to offer thus we wish you well, a happy life someplace else and I hope you can find a forum more to your liking and in sync with you philosophical position.

The best to you

[Islander]

Certainly this is an LDS site where bearing of testimonies and pro-church discussion is encouraged, but there is much more to this place than just that. I've had many mutually satisfying discussions with people here, despite our differences of opinion. I've made many friends. I've been blessed with many opportunities to help, support, and uplift the people who come here, and that is a great source of joy and satisfaction for me. I've even been thanked by some who joined the church after I helped answer their questions, talked some out of leaving the church for what I felt were bad reasons to do so, and helped deal with antimormon trolls. Despite my personal religious beliefs, our views are not the polar opposites you seem to think they are. If our differences are too great for you to cope with, nothing compels you to read anything I have to say.

By your own admission, you do not believe in God as manifested in the scriptures and or Christ as revealed in the Restoration. In fact, you do not believe in religion as traditionally understood. You are not loooking to understand or to learn anything as you were formerly a member of the church and thus know quite well what we believe and declare to the whole world. You are not seeking to regain a testimony, enrich your life or learn anything that may lead you to understand your existence and current spiritual crisis. You have, quite vociferously and without hesitation stated your unbelief about all we hold sacred. Your posts do nothing but oppose and contest ALL which you know abundantly clearly that we whole-heartedly believe.

Not only is the contention contrary to the estated purpose of the forum, it breeds the kind of friction we hope to avoid as to preserve the spirit of fellowship, friendship and Christ centered attitude we would like to share with investigator and interested alike.

I never questioned your motives for leaving the church. These are your own and if you are not concerned about your spiritual wellbeing, why should I? The desire for salvation and communion with God is an individual endevour born of the heart in response to the presence of the Holy Ghost and not an intellectual exercise. Explanations and arguments about why you separated yourself from God are nothing but rationalizations. They do not concern me.

I was hoping to avoid further contention and constant redirection for the sake of the investigators, the seekers of truth and all those who the Lord will lead here in their quest to learn, to inquire, to ponder and to reach to us in fellowship. That is clearly not your intent.

I understand your needs to social intercourse and engaging conversation. I was just suggesting another venue where like-minded people would gather with greater philosophical affinity to your current position.

[Tamrajh]

Once again it appears this thread has been hijacked into some way to dispute the way someone either believes or doesn't believe. I suggest that it be stopped now and we return to what the post was originally started about. I was enjoying the discussion until the tiff broke out...

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

Isn't that one of the major themes of God's Army?

Makes sense to me, too.

[Gwen]

i think it is important to know where your religion comes from, lds or not. all churches have things in their history we'd prefer weren't there. the difference is lds is "new" by comparison so ppl know about it and we do talk about it. we don't sit around condemning other ppl for not knowing "enough detail" as to the roots and every detail of their religion. i honestly think there are some anti's that "know more" about lds church history than they do their own church's.

i heard it once said that births are all the same, weither it be a chruch or a baby, it's painful, messy, bloody, and many opportunites for things to go horribly wrong and mistakes to be made.

but when it comes down to it my faith, my church, and my churches history are 3 seperate things. my faith can't be shaken by sudden knowledge of choices made in someone else's past cause it has nothing to do with my faith. i think that is where we fail our youth. we teach them the church is their faith, if they decide for some reason they can not accept the church they throw it all away. (in some cases their parents faith is their faith, when they discover things about their parents they react the same way.) that need not be the case. if they understood their faith and their church, though connected, are not one in the same they could withstand any attack long enough to sort it out rather than running away. i believe at some point we all have to come to terms with the fact that faith and religion aren't the same thing.

[PapilioMemnon]

I have heard it said that knowing accurate Church history ahead of time can inoculate you from the shock of running across it on the internet and having your faith shaken.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

Hi Moksha,

I feel that since faith is the first principle of the gospel, faith should be the primary focus. Faith is based in truth about things that edify and brings us closer to God, who does exist and it is a fact, and that is also a truth that many question because men decided that only things that can be scientifically proven is fact; nonetheless, God does not cesae to exist because of the ignorance of mankind. Spiritual information is the focus; "we preach of Christ, we testify of Christ,," we focus on Christ!

That does not mean that facts and truth about the history of the Church cannot be questioned, asked, answered in proper ways and truthfully.

However, truth can be utilized as a double-edge sword, and many people do that; I have seen that in many posts here!

In the history of any kind, including our own personal history, there are facts that we talk disclose, and some we don't necessarily talk about until asked or brought up. Why is that? To mislead, as other people have suggested? NO!

Imagine if I get to know you, first, by the facts someone else knows and presents about you that are not good and/or obscure, and /or difficult, especially since all this person has is the facts, which is truth, but facts without context is not useful, good, and it can be dangerous and mislead as well! Knowing that you did or behaved or acted this way, just tells me that you did, but the tone and interpretation, perception of the person who is relating this to me, aside from my own way to view things, can do much damage to your image! People rarely tells facts without staining others image, and they also rarely tells the WHOLE thing because they might not even know themselves.

How can they know your motivations, state of mind, perceptions, decision of why or not you decided to do something that APPEARS so problematic in general... people rarely know all that, and rarely PASS this information to others when they actually do know something about it!

I might decide never to get to know you, to approach you because of what has already been said about you even though it didn't come from you! People rarely go to the source to really get to know things as accurately as possible; people rarely are not influenced by the tone and interpretations of others!

In the case I presented, I can easily clear up, if I decide to actually approach you and get to know you from being with you, learning of Moksha from Moksha, not from A, B, or C.

So, if I were to, first, meet you and get to know you directly from you and people you associate with, that if you didn't spill ALL the embarassing, difficult, sad, absurd, controversial, sins, etc... about you to "inoculate' me, would that mean that you were trying to mislead me and presenting me with a fraud?

I don't think so!

Now, about Church History and the many controversial stuff:

If Joseph Smith was trying to hide anything, why in the world would he place the revelation(s) on D&C? Why would he place so many revelations of the Lord rebuking Him, punishing Him, and others for their lack of judgement, behavior, etc.? Would it be better to just skip them? We could have never known the fact that he gave in to the persuasions of men when he handed the manuscripts to martin Harris, and never know the Lord severely rebuked him for "fearing more men than God Himself!"

Now, is the Church/leaders trying to hide things? NO; D&C is out there, people can read it! There are several other books that mentions the same things from LDS Scholars, Apostles, etc. Again, all people need to do is seek and learn for themselves, hopefully, prayerfully with faith, seeking knowledge and understanding.

Now, can I approach Joseph Smith, or BY, or whomever to know exactly why he did things this way or that way; why he didn't approach it this way or that way; bla, bla,bla... Can I know of themselves from themselves? Are they here to tell me? Would they?

If God has not given revelations to justify every exact reason why HE HIMSELF does this or that, this way or not, to justify HIS ways to us and make Himself more justifiable, likable, understood in OUR eyes... why would He do that to Joseph?

Have you or any of you thought about why the prophets do not speak about some things no matter what's happening around them? Have you ever stopped to think and ponder why the prophets don't approach this subject? Is there any conference that we hear them addressing these things? Are they about to do them? Do you recall the GC that followed the attacks of 9/11? How many of them, of GA's were dwelling on fear, or faults, or those events? It was barely spoken of... If I'm not mistaking, Pres. Hinckley briefly mentioned it! What are the things they do try to concentrate on? Faith in The Word!

Dwelling on conflicts of any kind or faults, on negative things, and things that are not completely known (motivations, intentions, etc...) are not helpful or profitable!!!

Think about it....!!!! I think they are wise men and women and they know what's important to address! It's wise for us (Members) to do the same, and take counsel from the anointed of Heavenly Father, and not try to counsel, with our limited vision and perceptions, neither one!

If Heavenly Father has not direct them to address ALL the issues there's a reason why; it's wise to ponder that and "get understanding!" You'll believe that if you do believe they are called of Heavenly Father, and if you do know that for yourself! And I feel that if it ever becomes needed, Heavenly Father will have the ones He called to the office to do that well and His way!

On Alma 43-63, the war chapters, even though they are have several confilcts and wars, who began those wars? Who were the Lamanites in that case (What groups joined them)? What did Helaman do seeing there were more wars to come? Who was Amalickiah? He had a goal, and got it, but how? He actually said the truth and used truth many times? Righteously?... that's another matter then... How did Moroni behave in the middle of conflicts? Did he do anything but promote faith and testify of God and stand as a witness of Him at all times? What about Ammoron? How did respond to Moroni's letter? Did he use "truth?" For what purpose? Who did the Lamanites choose, from all the groups, their chief captains and why?

When Korihor began creating havoc among the Church in Zarahemla, and "preaching" his views, since "there was NO RULES against a man's beliefs", MANY people of the Church followed him. Why?

When He attempted to do the same thing to the Anti-Lehi-Nephi people or the People of Ammon in the Land of Jershon, was he successful? What was the difference?

Alma 30

There are several crucial lessons there that would be very wise for members of the Church, particularly, to learn and apply!

The past is past for a reason; as President Monson said, "Learn from the past, look to the future, live in the present!" Dwelling on past things, especially on things we have some facts, but really, barely any context to go with it, and especially on what seems to be the weaknesses or faults, obscure behavior of others, IS NOT something helpful, edifying, and uplifiting!!! That is not the point and goal of the Church!

Truth, facts, can be manipulated and mislead as well, depending who uses them and to what purpose. So, I do view inoculation with some skepticism especially the motivation of the source from where those "truths and facts" are coming from!

Threads/posts that are not uplifting and edifying, and not "faith promoting" serves no purpose in my opinion, and can "lead the hearts of many...."!

Since the site is not mine, I respect the decisons some people have made, and after a few months of observation and some participation, I'm considering making some decisions as well...

And those are my feelings and thoughts about it! I hope I answered your post! Sorry if it was too long!

Edited September 1, 2008 by PapilioMemnon
Notification

[bytor2112]

That's a very interesting post, Gwen. It touches on some of the things that were on my mind when I was thinking of coming back to church... either this one or some other.

Fent....I appreciated your earlier comments...... I wouldn't believe in God or the LDS church either if it weren't for the Spirit. I have learned that when we are faithful in all things...to the best of our ability, that is when the Spirit teaches us. When ever I am sidetracked.....the Spirit definitely isn't their and it would be easy to become a non believer. We have to have a thirst for righteousness and seek to know the things of God....for righteous purposes...and the Spirit will teach us sacred and eternal truths. If not for the Spirit......I am certain I wouldn't cling to religion.

[Moksha]

The past is past for a reason; as President Monson said, "Learn from the past, look to the future, live in the present!"

Papilio, these are wise words indeed.

So, I do view inoculation with some skepticism especially the motivation of the source from where those "truths and facts" are coming from!

I feel uncertain as how to answer this. You are obviously not the kind of person to have her faith shaken by any historical quirks and that is good. However, we are all different and some members have felt they had the rug pulled out from under them by things they learned on the internet. So, the question thus remains as to whether there is anything that can be done ahead of time to add some slip resistance to their footing.

[PapilioMemnon]

Papilio, these are wise words indeed.

I feel uncertain as how to answer this. You are obviously not the kind of person to have her faith shaken by any historical quirks and that is good. However, we are all different and some members have felt they had the rug pulled out from under them by things they learned on the internet. So, the question thus remains as to whether there is anything that can be done ahead of time to add some slip resistance to their footing.

Hi Moksha,

I do know and understand that.

Preach The Word; build faith! Faith in The Word is the "slip resistance" foundation!

[unixknight]

There is the phrase "milk before meat" which is about getting people the basics before they deal with the harder stuff. It makes sense, but if you just drink the milk and never eat the meat, it spoils, so when you have a taste of it, you get sick and can't eat anymore. It's the same way with information... the longer you go without hearing about the controversial stuff, the more likely you are to feel deceived when you do find it.

I've seen a lot of people relating stories about asking the missionaries difficult questions about controversial things, and the missionaries simply couldn't answer. I think they would be more effective if they learned about these issues and how to respond to them.

I think that makes a lot of sense, but on some level preparing the Missionaries by making them experts on LDS apologetics would seem to be well beyond the scope of both their mission and the amount of time they have to prepare for it.

Ultimately, the pivotal issue of the Church is Faith, and if the Missionaries have it, then they needn't fear arguments they can't answer. In terms of how others might view their inability to answer some of the criticisms, I think generally a critic isn't likely to be swayed by their answer even if they had one, and any third party observers can make up their own minds based on the behavior of the critic and the Missionaries themselves.

[Moksha]

Here seems to be an old but interesting article by Dr. Sterling M. McMurrin that was presented at the Great Issues Forum along with Dr. Hugh Nibley, back in 1955.

It is named Religion and the Denial of History and it starts on page 47.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/issues/032.pdf