What are your topics of interest in LDS history?

[Anddenex]

Actually, I am only repeating what the church has taught and taking it to its logical conclusion. Please be more detailed in how I am personally interpretating what the church said.

Quoting a person and actually understanding their heart and intention are not the same thing.

I assume you have had, or have experienced by others, people quoting another person and then applying their own interpretation, which interpretation isn't attributing correctly their statement. Happens all the time in politics.

That wasn't my intent or desire. In your scenario each successive war could have been bigger than the last. But to say our historical records are true when there are only a few years worth of records (1929-1844) then say they aren't is someone changing something, That is obvious and it has nothing to do with being personal or anyone's individual interpretation. In fact, I have found quotes from my 1918 D&CC (D&C Commentary)where the church had put something in its history (HoC) only to check my modern (paperback) HoCs and find that it was taken out of the HoC. That's changing your history, isn't it? If not, what do you call that? The records (HoCs and the words of the church leaders who put them together) stand for themselves. If they were wrong back then, show/say how don't just say it and move on as if nothing was ever said. That is , at least, misleading people who haven't studied the church like I have.

No, it is correcting history, something which needs to be done. That is honesty. Again, they provided the record according to their understanding, what they experienced, and what they had available.

I have a journal, I write in my journal, I have tried to write experiences that I know happened when I was young. I write my record according to my knowledge, and according to my first hand experience. However, what if someone came across another journal, another experience, and then we realize more of my story, or where my recollection was off. Did I lie? No. Once, this information is given me, I correct the record. I have had this happen when writing in my journal, then I ask my mother about the experience and she informs of things I didn't remember, or didn't have access to that she had access to. We do our best. The record I provided was "true" according to my knowledge of the events, however when adding other peoples' knowledge we may find more than what we originally wrote.

It is silly to call something a lie, when no intention of lying was written and provided. When these changes, new information is given, we correct the record.

What?! They had all of the reords of their church in their hands. They 'lived' through the times or they had trusted men who did . How can you even 'think' such a thing?

Really, they had all records? How do you know this? Historians would suggest otherwise, which is why with new information and new recorded records we correct and make the necessary changes.

Other people lived through those times also, you think everyone who lived at that time and wrote a record they had access to?

I think logically and rationally, that is why I can think such a thing. How can you imagine or even suggest they had everything "all" the records?

Hey, now, name calling is undeserved. If you can't refute or explain your churches changes to its history, doctrines and prophecies without name calling and being mean then maybe you should not reply. And, maybe you should study your history and teachings more.

Name calling? I simply made a general statement regarding the typical anti-Mormon thread and line of thinking you post I find on youtube. Same old statements. Same responses. Doesn't convince anyone either way.

Let me reply in a similar tone, if you are unable to speak truthfully about LDS History, please hold your tongue.

Mean? Well, you and I have a different definition about what is mean. It is amazing how much I have read, and you assume it to be less than yours, and yet I still understand it better. Imagine that?

[rameumptom]

Jeep,

I did not say JFSmith wrote HoC. I said he was not a historian who could verify that the HoC was the most accurate history ever written. I agree with JAG.

As it is, the authors of HoC were NOT eye witnesses of most of the events in the book. They were not there for the First Vision, Book of Mormon, etc. Much of the story they wrote was second or third hand information. History was written and viewed differently then than it is now. History was expected to be written from a specific viewpont: that of the winner. Victories were embellished and flaws were downplayed or even ignored.

For example, how much of HoC tells us about Joseph Smith's plural wives? How much of it discusses Joseph Smith's temper or Brigham Young's foul language? Does it mention the MMM? How about the Danites? Does it discuss the various versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision? There are lots of things a historian may choose to add or not add, and the method of writing can make a person sound noble or ignoble on the same event.

Truth doesn't change. However, we do not have "all truth" and so the Church has to stumble along sometimes until the Lord reveals truths we have yet to receive. When it comes to doctrine, Joseph Smith noted that we have few actual doctrines in the Church. However, over time, many teachings and beliefs of GAs were accepted by the general membership as doctrine, even though it wasn't official (and sometimes was not true, either). For example, for over a century, most members believed in the priesthood curse on blacks. It was based on speculation, but when enough GAs say the same thing, it then becomes fiat doctrine, even though not true nor official.

Today's Church has learned this lesson, which is why you will not see another apostle write a Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine (by Joseph F Smith) or Doctrines of Salvation. Why? Because today's GAs do not speculate on teachings, but only focus on the key/core doctrines that are clearly true and made official by the Church. They now leave the speculating to LDS professors of religion and others to discuss, where no one will take it and make it official doctrine because an apostle said it.

Doctrine and truth are one thing. History is an entirely different animal. We have historical facts (doctrine and truth) and we have events that can be interpreted in many different ways (history).

Fact: White Americans moved Native Americans onto reservations after many years of wars.

History: Depending on which approach you take and how you manage the facts, either the whites or Indians were the good guys, OR both were either good or evil.

[BadWolf]

As an anthropologist (and NOT a postprocessualist, my bias upfront) I look at history as a fun story; Largely untrue (partial truths), heavily biased, and missing bits.

For any account, past or present, there's always at least a dozen possibilities as to what ACTUALLY happened, the motivations of the people involved, the real story.

I love history.

I believe its study is invaluable, although I also recognize it is an EXTREMELY soft science.

But its fun!

Like the world's greatest mystery novel.

[JeepMoab]

That's a whole other thread. Feel free to start it up under "Gospel Discussion", if you wish.

K. Thanks.

The implication being that there are true feelings--or "spirits", as John calls them--which squares with the whole idea of the manifestations from the Day of Pentecost and gifts of the Spirit found elsewhere in the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular.

Actually, yes but they never go with what has already been revealed to us. When it comes to visions, dreams, angels, spirits or feelings we are to never contradict what has already been revealed to us. Thus Paul saying the devil can appear as an angel of light. With revealed truth in hand we can know what a bad feeling or spirit is by examining that entity (spirit, dream, feeling, etc) with what we know is from God. God does not send mixed messages or change His doctrines (etc). How can I trust Him to not do so later on to the exact opposite once He starts doing it? That's not a perfect, just and Holy God.

It would be interesting to hear where "faith" comes into play with this approach to scripture, religion, and God. Again--feel free to start a thread under "Gospel Discussion" and I'm sure you'll get a lot of interesting responses.

Ok. Will go there with this stuff. Again, thanks.

[JeepMoab]

Be careful on stating such broad statements. Elder McConkie was flat wrong on some of his statements regarding blacks and the priesthood. Does that make him a liar, simply because he chose to believe LDS tradition over the facts and truth?

First off, I didn't mean to imply BRM was a liar. I meant those who say one thing then change it, for whatever reason, are hiding something. And, if it came from God the first time then they are leading people astray with false doctrines (not accusing anyone here- just saying). The LDS church, through BY (JoD 9:289), said God would quickly sweep any LDS leader off the earth if they 'tried' to lead the church astray. And, BY said 'all' of his sermons were scripture (JoD 13:95). So, if they try to change something, any thing, then they should have been swept off the earth or someone was leading the people/church astray by saying he would.

Also, I have found, in my 25 plus years researching, that most of what BRM said was actually taught as LDS doctrine and/or scripture by the church/its leaders. I see no tradition there but rather truth, LDS church truth.

[JeepMoab]

As an anthropologist (and NOT a postprocessualist, my bias upfront) I look at history as a fun story; Largely untrue (partial truths), heavily biased, and missing bits.

For any account, past or present, there's always at least a dozen possibilities as to what ACTUALLY happened, the motivations of the people involved, the real story.

I love history.

I believe its study is invaluable, although I also recognize it is an EXTREMELY soft science.

But its fun!

Like the world's greatest mystery novel.

I'm sure I'm missing some comments- I can't keep up (haha)- but...are you saying the church did not accurately record what happened as it was happening (or shortly thereafter)? That's not what the HoCs say or the men who are "Called' to be leaders of of God's only true church on earth. Are you trying to say that those men, who actually lived it, don't know as much about their church's history- and their own- as men today who are more than 170 years removed from the events? Are you really going to try to pass that off? I don't buy it. And, JS said he believed the Bible said what it means and means what it says. I say the same about the LDS leaders who all had to see Jesus personally before becoming Apostles and going out into the world (HoC 2:182-190-ish). If you can't trust these men (mid-1800s) then who can you trust?

Edited April 17, 2013 by JeepMoab

[bytebear]

If that is true why are some here acting like the 'new' stuff (which I didn't even know about) has changed some things? According to LDS doctrine the truth is the same in every generation (Mormon Doctrine (MD) 810). It never changes and if it does it wasn't true when they said it was.

Whoa. I wasn't picking anything apart I was just saying what the church said- its history is the most correct ever written.

I agree with people saying bad things from all religions but...the LDS church is different insofar that it is run directly by God. Christian churches are guided by the Bible, not by revelation straight from God as the LDS is. That's the difference. There have always been bad Christians in high positions. But a bad LDS in a high position was 'Called' to be there by God. See the diff?

I don't dimiss any 'leader' from any church from any time period. If they were bad they should be called bad. But when its an LDS that says or does bad it falls to the feet of the LDS God because he knows everything (the future included) and he called this guy knowing he would act/speak that way.

I fully embrace my history. It seems the LDS are always wanting to change theirs and make excuses for it then demand everyone else accept the new as true. I don't do that for anything in life- I follow the facts, whatever they say and wherever they lead whether it's agreeable to me, you or whoever. That is the nature of truth- we don't always like it but truth never changes or cares about what we 'think' or 'feel' about it.

It's funny how you dismiss a "bad" leader as not a true leader called of God. That pretty much negates Moses, Noah, Abraham, David, and a whole slew of God's chosen leaders who didn't live up to this perfection you seem to require of them.

Truth is not the same as facts. The truth is the message that Joseph Smith taught, that the Book of Mormon teaches and that the church teaches today has not changed one bit. That is, that Jesus is the Christ. The church has not budged an inch on that, and it was taught from the very first day of Smith's prophetic calling.

Now, I could certainly cherry pick "facts" about the life of Jesus. He was a violent man with a horrible temper because he turned the tables of the money changers. True? He cavorted with prostitutes and thieves! He was a convicted criminal!

See how that works? You can try to prove God's will through logic, but you will always fail. In fact, the Atheists have a far better argument than you based on "facts". Watch the movie Contact. It's a good lesson in faith vs. facts.

[Just_A_Guy]

Did you read what the church leaders said? They were eye witnesses or first hand accounts of what happened. So please explain how their methodology was flawed or how they were biased.

All participants to historical events are biased. For example, Woodruff - who implicitly believed that the LDS Church was in fact the kingdom of God - may have been simply incapable of seeing how boastful editorials in the Evening and Morning Star about the Church's imminent occupation and possession of the lands of Zion might come off as threatening to the old settlers of Jackson County; and so when they reacted violently Woodruff would naturally chalk it all up to pure satanic opposition. Moreover, the editors of the HC had a lot of sources--but they didn't have everything. For example, when Church Historian John Whitmer left the Church in 1838, he refused to turn his written journal history over to the Church and the Church didn't regain possession of it until the early 20th century. There were also individual journals all over the place to which Messrs Smith, Woodruff, Roberts, et. al. didn't cite because, quite simply, they were in private hands and the editors didn't know they existed.

Also, if that great work- said to be the most correct history ever- isn't then why should we believe anything the LDS church says is true- like the BoM, which is 'said' to be the most correct book on earth?

You're conflating the Church with individuals. But leaving that aside for a moment: As a Mormon I don't believe anything my Church tells me is true just because it's the Church that's telling it to me. I weigh it against the Spirit of Christ that is in me. I realize that scares the beejeebies out of those who buy into sola scriptura; but Mormonism unabashedly proclaims a truth that was understood and known by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, Peter, Paul, and innumerable other prophets and believers throughout history: Not only can you talk to God, but He can, and does, talk back. Scripture provides a yardstick against which personal revelations can be measured, as a check against false revelation. But it does not stand alone.

How can you, in the same twenty-four hour period, condemn my challenge of trinitarian dogma as an attempt to limit God, but then yourself insist that God does not, will not, can not reveal Himself to me or anyone else through extra-scriptural means?

And, with no evil intent here, they were either telling (writing) the truth or lying. There isn't any other way to look at it.

No professionally trained historian, in or out of the Church, would back you up on this as a general assertion.

The HoCs as originally published are true or church leaders and a soon-to-be church Prophet led the church astray- and both BY and WW (the one who helped compile the HoCs) said God would never allow the leaders to do that.

How did they lead the Church astray? Please be specific. In what manner did the faults of the HC induce the Church membership to pattern their lives and their relationships with Divinity in a manner that was contrary to the mind and will of the Lord?

Really? They were living at the time and they had the past and present church records readily available. How did they 'lack' access? Also, there wasn't near as many records to sift through so it was, really, an easy thing for them to do.

See above. Also, even within the institutional Church, different records are kept in different places. For example, during the Mark Hoffmann affair the Church's PR man, Martin Cahill, flatly denied that the Church had the William McLellin journals in its possession. Gordon Hinckley had to correct him because, as it turned out, the Church did have the McLellin journals. The trouble was that they weren't in Church archives--they were in the First Presidency's vault, which had never been formally cataloged. More sources have come to light just in the past ten years as work on the Joseph Smith Papers Project has proceeded.

But you say they got it wrong. So do you really think, with almost 200 years worth of records to sift through they will get it any more right 'this' time? What about next time when they say this time was...something?

Are you really saying that the first history is always the best history? Because it isn't only Mormons who would take issue with that statement. Indeed, the notion undermines the raison d'etre for academic history departments the world over.

Another motto of mine is, never use an excuse for an escape. Honesty is the best policy the first time or you end up changing your unchangeable God's words, doctrines and your own recorded history over and over as we see happening now with the church.

Another good approach to life is to make a point of seeing things as they are, not as you or somebody else might want them to be--that way you don't end up tilting at straw men.

You may enjoy this article.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Actually, yes but they never go with what has already been revealed to us. When it comes to visions, dreams, angels, spirits or feelings we are to never contradict what has already been revealed to us. Thus Paul saying the devil can appear as an angel of light. With revealed truth in hand we can know what a bad feeling or spirit is by examining that entity (spirit, dream, feeling, etc) with what we know is from God. God does not send mixed messages or change His doctrines (etc). How can I trust Him to not do so later on to the exact opposite once He starts doing it? That's not a perfect, just and Holy God.

Can you please back this up? You're saying a lot of how things "are" and "should be", but you'd have better credibility if you put the specific scriptures behind the statements.

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually, yes but they never go with what has already been revealed to us. When it comes to visions, dreams, angels, spirits or feelings we are to never contradict what has already been revealed to us. Thus Paul saying the devil can appear as an angel of light. With revealed truth in hand we can know what a bad feeling or spirit is by examining that entity (spirit, dream, feeling, etc) with what we know is from God.

Agreed.

God does not send mixed messages or change His doctrines (etc).

Generally true; but He does adapt His counsels to serve the needs of a particular moment. For example, He told ancient Israel to conform to the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. Then He told Peter and Paul that doing so was no longer necessary. In Gethsemane He told His disciples to watch with Him; then, He told them to go ahead and sleep; then, almost immediately, He told them to get up. We don't always know the full reasons for His giving alternating short-term instructions; but He does. Our job is to listen, and obey.

How can I trust Him to not do so later on to the exact opposite once He starts doing it?

You generally can; provided that the message was correctly conveyed to you and interpreted by you in the first place.

In some cases, as mentioned above, there is the possibility that counsel will change as circumstances do; and the challenge there is that we each need to be patterning our lives in such a way so that if God has a message specifically for us, we are ready and willing to receive it.

There's also the possibility that God has us embark on a course of action, only to revoke the command once we have shown our willingness to obey Him at all hazards (i.e. Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac). Again--the key is to be ready and willing to receive the Lord's counsel, whatever it is and through whatever means He chooses to reveal Himself.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

First off, I didn't mean to imply BRM was a liar. I meant those who say one thing then change it, for whatever reason, are hiding something. And, if it came from God the first time then they are leading people astray with false doctrines (not accusing anyone here- just saying). The LDS church, through BY (JoD 9:289), said God would quickly sweep any LDS leader off the earth if they 'tried' to lead the church astray. And, BY said 'all' of his sermons were scripture (JoD 13:95). So, if they try to change something, any thing, then they should have been swept off the earth or someone was leading the people/church astray by saying he would.

Also, I have found, in my 25 plus years researching, that most of what BRM said was actually taught as LDS doctrine and/or scripture by the church/its leaders. I see no tradition there but rather truth, LDS church truth.

See, here's an example of selective truth. That BY said that is a fact, but it's not the truth of his message. Go read the entire sermon, and you'll find the tone and message of truth to be very different than the cherry picked quote.

[Palerider]

One of these days I will list all my books I have read...

A good website to visit is....Blacklds.org

Thats a great read all the info on their and to see their opinions..

[BadWolf]

I'm sure I'm missing some comments- I can't keep up (haha)- but...are you saying the church did not accurately record what happened as it was happening (or shortly thereafter)? That's not what the HoCs say or the men who are "Called' to be leaders of of God's only true church on earth. Are you trying to say that those men, who actually lived it, don't know as much about their church's history- and their own- as men today who are more than 170 years removed from the events? Are you really going to try to pass that off? I don't buy it. And, JS said he believed the Bible said what it means and means what it says. I say the same about the LDS leaders who all had to see Jesus personally before becoming Apostles and going out into the world (HoC 2:182-190-ish). If you can't trust these men (mid-1800s) then who can you trust?

Nope.

Not what I was saying at all.

Im saying that

- even people who are present at the time don't know all the ins & outs of everything going on, at all times, with everyone. The not omniecient part of life. So accounts, even first hand accounts of events / primary sources, are limited in their scope, and are biased. Not that they're lying (although most people slant the truth in their favor and its ALWAYS colored by their perception... Which is a product of the individual cumulative life experience).

- That even the very few who know most, change & grow over time, and may see the same event differently in the moment and at some time in the future. What may be seen as a tragedy by one person, a year or 10 years, later... May view the event as a triumph, or blessing, or necessary evil, or with gratitude.

- that once one goes into secondary & tertiary accounts one has a whole new set of problems

- that the lens in which we interpret 1st hand, secondary, & tertiary sources needs to be taken into account (although never able to totally remove it)

- that anyone, at a later date, will rarely have the complete story (although sometimes we may have more pieces to deduce from, its still deduction & correlation).

- that most, in the present, will never have the complete story

- that facts & truth are 2 entirely seperate creatures (science v non science)

- deduction v induction

- that history is written by the victors or the survivors,

- that the writers of history make many assumptions (leaving out what they believe to be unimportant or what "everyone already knows". ((For example "everyone" knew that my grandfathers unit did x because of y. So it didn't get recorded. 70 years later, he had historians seeking out members of his unit because they were trying to find out why in blazes they did "x". Or, if everyone knows how big a cubit is, why record that? Or if everyone knows the notes for how Greek is sung -ancient Greek was a sung language, not a spoken one, drives classicists into therapy, why record that? Or if everyone knows what a road is, why record that? The mundane gets annihilated by history.))

- that scope & sequence are limited by many factors

Which is true for ALL of history.

Not just one specific piece of it.

And it hardly follows that the veracity of any person or group should be called into question merely because its limited in the exact same way that everything else is limited.

Also, for the record, history & prophecy are ALSO 2 seperate creatures.

Just because we don't know the intimate details of an argument, or even if there was an argument... Just because a person may believe one way about an event, then come to believe differently, and both are recorded... Just because we know far LESS than there is to BE known... Doesn't invalidate something entirely separate.