Mormons and Church History

[Connie]

Interesting article.

Mormons being exposed to more of their beliefs online | ksl.com

[Backroads]

"The problem is not so much that there are no answers to historical questions, but that people discover this or that historical fact that they had never heard before," Peterson told the Deseret News. "They then feel like the church had been hiding the fact and so lose a sense of trust."

This is very true. I really don't think the Church goes out of its way to hide things, but I suppose I can understand why people might feel that way.

[RMGuy]

This is very true. I really don't think the Church goes out of its way to hide things, but I suppose I can understand why people might feel that way.

Backroads,

I think the quote you cited is it in a nutshell for a lot of people. I don't know if it is considered hiding or not, but I would love to read Oliver's journal or the Council fo 50 minutes.

-RM

[Blackmarch]

Interesting article.

Mormons being exposed to more of their beliefs online | ksl.com

sort-of... if you count partial accounts, misquotes, and things of that nature for the majority of it.

[Spartan117]

"I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church"

By Davis Bittons

2004 FAIR conference talk. Davis Bitton is an LDS historian and scholar who discusses his beliefs. Some have asked him how he could believe in the Church, when the critics see many problems with Church history. He answers this question with this lecture.

Text transcript of the presentation

I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church

Youtube: Part 1

Youtube: Part 2

Youtube: Part 3

Youtube: Part 4

Youtube: Part 5

Youtube: Part 6

[RipplecutBuddha]

I think the title of the article is a bit misleading. We aren't being exposed to more of our beliefs (that happens every Sunday) so much as we are being exposed to parts of the history of the LDS Church, and as the above article explains, that's not the same thing.

The unique part about our religion is that it is in all likelihood the best documented origin ever recorded. I can't think of another world religion that has so much material available about its beginnings...that has been written, preserved, and is currently available to the public at large due to the efforts of the organization itself.

We are called secretive, yet the only thing we are really mum about are the temple ordinances in detail. Everything else is either already public knowledge, or part of the documentary history of the church.

I like what David Bitton says though "I don't have a testimony of the history of the LDS Church." In one respect, because it is history, we don't really need a testimony of it. So long as it is reported accurately and as completely as possible, it is what it is.

The strength of the LDS Church doesn't rest on its history, but on its religious claims, standards, and practices. That's where our testimony needs to be.

[Dravin]

I'll be honest, I've never felt like the purpose and responsibility of the Church is to teach me history. The Church touches upon Church history as it pertains to it's purpose and responsibility of teaching the doctrines of Christ. I understand others feel differently, maybe people interpret the D&C and Church History section of the Church curriculum differently than I? I don't see them as history lessons, I see them as, once again, a vehicle for teaching doctrine. Much like I don't view our studies of the OT, NT, or Book of Mormon as the teaching of history even if at times it is used as a vehicle for teaching and understanding doctrine.

So while I understand that the Church curricula could be a little less circumspect some folks seem to want a couple semesters worth of college level courses on Church History. Though maybe such folks would be okay with say a BYU publication of Church history or something? I'm just thinking if you turned every 4th year into 'things about Church history that might shock you' we'd be taking away from the doctrine portion of that unit, likewise with Teachings of the Prophets series of Relief Society/Priesthood manuals.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Dravin

[Tyler90AZ]

The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no worse then any other religion. Instead of people getting angry at us for Mountain Meadows, they should applaud us for never starting a war, like most other religions. People should not get angry at us for polygamy, that is our doctrine, whereas some other religions are hypocrites. People should not get angry at us for anything a Prophet says, as it is less controversial then actual events that have happened in other religions. People should not get angry at us for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood, because we actually actively fought against slavery, whereas most other religions did not. People should not get angry at us for missionary work, because we are one of the only churches who truly lives up to our obligation to share the gospel, as stated in the Bible. People should not get angry at us when they find small things wrong with our church history, as we are one of the only religions to keep such a detailed account of history. To sum up, instead of attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for our history, it may be wise to compare religions, you may be surprised that we actually are a bright spot in religion compared to others.

With that in mind, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints history is nothing to be ashamed. What about the pioneers who so valiantly came to SLC? What about the saints who faced the extermination order? What about the saints who built the SLC Temple? What about Joseph Smith, who face persecution for starting this wonderful church? What about all members who have faced persecution? What about the many great cities the Saints have pioneered? What about all the Temples around the world? What about all the missionaries who have served for the Lord? What about the translating of The Book of Mormon? What about all the charity our church has done? What about the fact our church was against slavery? I could go on and on, the point is, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has far more bright spots, then dim spots. We should not look down on our church for making mistakes it is part of having humans participate, it is unavoidable.

[Tyler90AZ]

I'll be honest, I've never felt like the purpose and responsibility of the Church is to teach me history. The Church touches upon Church history as it pertains to it's purpose and responsibility of teaching the doctrines of Christ. I understand others feel differently, maybe people interpret the D&C and Church History section of the Church curriculum differently than I? I don't see them as history lessons, I see them as, once again, a vehicle for teaching doctrine. Much like I don't view our studies of the OT, NT, or Book of Mormon as the teaching of history even if at times it is used as a vehicle for teaching and understanding doctrine.

So while I understand that the Church curricula could be a little less circumspect some folks seem to want a couple semesters worth of college level courses on Church History. Though maybe such folks would be okay with say a BYU publication of Church history or something? I'm just thinking if you turned every 4th year into 'things about Church history that might shock you' we'd be taking away from the doctrine portion of that unit, likewise with Teachings of the Prophets series of Relief Society/Priesthood manuals.

Your are correct, that is something I absolutely would not want, I go to church to be uplifted by the beautiful doctrine this church has. I don't go to church to learn about history, that is not as uplifting in some cases, as the doctrine. I want to be uplifted in all my classes, nothing perceived to be controversial.

[pam]

The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no worse then any other religion. Instead of people getting angry at us for Mountain Meadows, they should applaud us for never starting a war, like most other religions. People should not get angry at us for polygamy, that is our doctrine, whereas some other religions are hypocrites. People should not get angry at us for anything a Prophet says, as it is less controversial then actual events that have happened in other religions. People should not get angry at us for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood, because we actually actively fought against slavery, whereas most other religions did not. People should not get angry at us for missionary work, because we are one of the only churches who truly lives up to our obligation to share the gospel, as stated in the Bible. People should not get angry at us when they find small things wrong with our church history, as we are one of the only religions to keep such a detailed account of history. To sum up, instead of attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for our history, it may be wise to compare religions, you may be surprised that we actually are a bright spot in religion compared to others.

With that in mind, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints history is nothing to be ashamed. What about the pioneers who so valiantly came to SLC? What about the saints who faced the extermination order? What about the saints who built the SLC Temple? What about Joseph Smith, who face persecution for starting this wonderful church? What about all members who have faced persecution? What about the many great cities the Saints have pioneered? What about all the Temples around the world? What about all the missionaries who have served for the Lord? What about the translating of The Book of Mormon? What about all the charity our church has done? What about the fact our church was against slavery? I could go on and on, the point is, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has far more bright spots, then dim spots. We should not look down on our church for making mistakes it is part of having humans participate, it is unavoidable.

It is very unfortunate that many who criticize only see what they perceive to be the bad parts and not the good as you have pointed out.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep - it's important to know what you believe and why you believe it. It's important to have a testimony based on the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ, and not hero worship about church leaders, or an ignorant back-of-the-mind notion that there's nothing challenging in our history.

[Backroads]

It's not even religions--plenty of organizations out there in the world, spiritual and not, have less-than-savory histories.

I think the story of the mote and the beam apply here...

[bytebear]

I find it ironic that all the "secrets" of Mormon history comes from Mormons who kept histories.

[RMGuy]

I find it ironic that all the "secrets" of Mormon history comes from Mormons who kept histories.

LOL! You can say that about any group....lol!

-RM

[annewandering]

I find it ironic that all the "secrets" of Mormon history comes from Mormons who kept histories.

Who else would know them? lol. Its interesting to me that people who keep secrets have kept the faith but dont trust anyone else to do the same. A bit egotistical perhaps?

If we cant accept everyone is human and can make mistakes then we have to be pretty close minded.

[jayanna]

The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no worse then any other religion. Instead of people getting angry at us for Mountain Meadows, they should applaud us for never starting a war, like most other religions.

Okay, that one hit a little too close to home for me. What happened at the Mountain Meadows Massacre was not okay, and is not okay when compared to war. I had family members in that group, they were from Arkansas. While I do not blame the church as a whole, I do consider those who were involved in it to be criminals. I do not console myself or my family members with "well it wasn't as bad as some others" It was very very bad. It was planned and plotted murder involving families, parents shot and killed in front of their children. Men, women, and yes, children were killed. Please let us not try to excuse this.

The Following can be found in the Ensign article : The Mountain Meadows Massacre - Ensign Sept. 2007 - ensign

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack. (Please see the article for explanation of earlier attacks)

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing.

Actions taken on that day made it very hard to be accepted in my family after joining the church. Yes there is a memorial there, dedicated by Pres. Hinkley, and a lot of family can point out that the graves of 29 men, women and children were dug up by the construction of the memorial and had to be reburried.

"The day before the dedication, descendants of the wagon train pioneers held a two-hour memorial service and reinterred the remains of 29 men, women, and children that had been accidentally uncovered during construction of the new monument."

found News of the Church - Ensign Nov. 1999 - ensign

I would not call it a 'dim spot'...or a 'small thing' and yes it is something to be ashamed of. No I don't think they were being human, I don't think they were being human at all.

I know that you and I can appreciate all of the good things the church has done...but many that I am related to, and have to answer to, do not believe in the Book of Mormon, so don't think the missionaries, temples, and Joseph Smith are good things. Nonmembers have done amazing things too, what about the very website you are on right now, and your computer, and the roads, planes, and cars those missionaries use every day? And it does not excuse the rude behavior of some of them to you, does it? If their great things do not excuse their rude comments, then how can all of the good things (that you and I think are good, but not them) excuse murdering innocent women and children? I think you may have a beam in your eye.

Let's not gloss it over and cover it up with good deeds. Instead, let's own it and learn from it, and never get that attitude again.

[Vort]

Let's not gloss it over and cover it up with good deeds. Instead, let's own it and learn from it, and never get that attitude again.

I guess I don't understand why I should "own" this. My Church did not do this. My ancestors did not even do this. A paranoid group of people did this. I understand their paranoia, though of course it cannot justify their unspeakable deed. But in what possible sense ought I to "own" this?

[prisonchaplain]

I'll be honest, I've never felt like the purpose and responsibility of the Church is to teach me history. The Church touches upon Church history as it pertains to it's purpose and responsibility of teaching the doctrines of Christ.

I probably use more historical lillustrations in my teaching than most ministers, simply because I found it fascinating, and chose to emphasize it during my studies. Keep in mind that my fellowship is still two years short of its centennial. There are many faith-affirming stories, and some facts that might prove disheartening. For example, the individual credited with formulating our flagship doctrine about tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism was also quite racist (definitely a product of his time and region). So...why does your church history get so much more critical attention? Why is it that when anything negative comes to light, critics jump on it, and some members wonder why the information was "hidden?" Loyalists will say the opposition is because the Church is true, and this double-standard is just another proof that the Church is true--that's why there is so much opposition. Of course, another explanation is that the Church claims to be the restoration of the gospel and the only place where there is full spiritual authority. Such doctrines do invite much closer scrutiny.

[prisonchaplain]

I guess I don't understand why I should "own" this. My Church did not do this. My ancestors did not even do this. A paranoid group of people did this. I understand their paranoia, though of course it cannot justify their unspeakable deed. But in what possible sense ought I to "own" this?

When you join a community, you own its history, its foibles, as well as its accomplishments and victories. The fact that you have some empathy for why those folks were paranoid, suggests that on some level you accept this. So, would it not be a healthy and loving approach to also put some effort to empathisizing with those on othe other side? That way, when critics raise up Mountain Meadows, the response will neither be naivete, callous triumphalism, nor a polemic defense. My guess is that most critics would by stopped cold by an authentic expression of sorrow over the unfortunate episode.

To this day I find it sad that our early pentecostals, mostly out of the realities of the time, formed seperate denominations, along racial lines. God is using both, and we cooperate well. We are brothers and sisters, and our blood is the same--the blood of Jesus. Still, we have these separate groups. For me to just say, "Well, that must be how God willed it," would be flippant, and a pittiful defense. Sometimes we do have to "own" our Church's difficulties, even when we do not feel individually at fault. I am no long my own--I've given myself over to Jesus, and cast my lot with his people.

[Tyler90AZ]

Okay, that one hit a little too close to home for me. What happened at the Mountain Meadows Massacre was not okay, and is not okay when compared to war. I had family members in that group, they were from Arkansas. While I do not blame the church as a whole, I do consider those who were involved in it to be criminals. I do not console myself or my family members with "well it wasn't as bad as some others" It was very very bad. It was planned and plotted murder involving families, parents shot and killed in front of their children. Men, women, and yes, children were killed. Please let us not try to excuse this.

The Following can be found in the Ensign article : The Mountain Meadows Massacre - Ensign Sept. 2007 - ensign

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack. (Please see the article for explanation of earlier attacks)

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing.

Actions taken on that day made it very hard to be accepted in my family after joining the church. Yes there is a memorial there, dedicated by Pres. Hinkley, and a lot of family can point out that the graves of 29 men, women and children were dug up by the construction of the memorial and had to be reburried.

"The day before the dedication, descendants of the wagon train pioneers held a two-hour memorial service and reinterred the remains of 29 men, women, and children that had been accidentally uncovered during construction of the new monument."

found News of the Church - Ensign Nov. 1999 - ensign

I would not call it a 'dim spot'...or a 'small thing' and yes it is something to be ashamed of. No I don't think they were being human, I don't think they were being human at all.

I know that you and I can appreciate all of the good things the church has done...but many that I am related to, and have to answer to, do not believe in the Book of Mormon, so don't think the missionaries, temples, and Joseph Smith are good things. Nonmembers have done amazing things too, what about the very website you are on right now, and your computer, and the roads, planes, and cars those missionaries use every day? And it does not excuse the rude behavior of some of them to you, does it? If their great things do not excuse their rude comments, then how can all of the good things (that you and I think are good, but not them) excuse murdering innocent women and children? I think you may have a beam in your eye.

Let's not gloss it over and cover it up with good deeds. Instead, let's own it and learn from it, and never get that attitude again.

I was simply comparing our religion to others and showing we are not much different after all. I apologize if I offended you, off course murder is never acceptable. However, I do not agree I have to own up for their behavior. That is similar to saying I should own up to any members who have ever murdered or committed a crime. Also forgive me for trying to understand their perspective, off course I do not justify murder, but I think I would be a little trigger happy knowing the history they had been through. As you know, Latter-day Saints were attacked for many years prior to this incident.

[Tyler90AZ]

I probably use more historical lillustrations in my teaching than most ministers, simply because I found it fascinating, and chose to emphasize it during my studies. Keep in mind that my fellowship is still two years short of its centennial. There are many faith-affirming stories, and some facts that might prove disheartening. For example, the individual credited with formulating our flagship doctrine about tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism was also quite racist (definitely a product of his time and region). So...why does your church history get so much more critical attention? Why is it that when anything negative comes to light, critics jump on it, and some members wonder why the information was "hidden?" Loyalists will say the opposition is because the Church is true, and this double-standard is just another proof that the Church is true--that's why there is so much opposition. Of course, another explanation is that the Church claims to be the restoration of the gospel and the only place where there is full spiritual authority. Such doctrines do invite much closer scrutiny.

Is it possible that problems in our history are brought to light more because more people are against our religion? We are not accepted by atheists... We are not accepted by other Christian denominations... So who are we accepted by? Not a heck of a lot of people, especially in the past years. Thankfully that is changing!

Edited February 7, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[Dravin]

So...why does your church history get so much more critical attention?

Part of it is the claim to authority as you mention, a part of it is a vocal counter-ministry effort. Honestly I can't say we do get more critical attention, I mean it certainly feels that way, but it's not like folks complaining about the Catholic Church's history really pings my radar.

Why is it that when anything negative comes to light, critics jump on it, and some members wonder why the information was "hidden?"

Well critics (regardless of who or what they are aimed at) will as a matter of course pounce upon anything that they believe strengthens their argument. To that part of your question the answer is straight forward.

As far as members feeling the history was hidden, I can't help but feel that some people are under the impression that lessons touching on Church history are history lessons with some doctrine rather than the reverse. Additionally if the Church doesn't point out that Brigham Young had a divorce they didn't hide it, hiding it is trying to eliminate or control records containing that information. I think when some people complain the Church hid something they more often mean, "They didn't tell me that in Church!". Now I'm sure some things have been hidden (by well meaning members if not the official Church hierarchy), but lets not confuse the two.

Like I said, I think the official curricula could be a little less circumspect as it pertains to the bumps in the road, but ultimately if you want to know the details of Church history you need to research it.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Dravin

[NadiaStar]

Jayanna, I appreciate your post, but Mormons are not the only religion that have committed massacres on that scale. The point made still remains.

While I do feel we should admit what people did, how do we? Are we supposed to beat ourselves up about it? Vort is right: we didn't do it. Where's the happy medium?

[prisonchaplain]

Nadia...let's pick a broader historical difficulty. Christian missionaries came with western militaries and opium traders to China. In retrospect, it very much looked like we went there to conquer their militaries, their economy, and their spirituality.

But hey, that was a long time ago. My church's missionaries didn't do it. So, what do I care? Why should I? Well...because I'm white, I'm Christian, and these people were wounded by white Christians. Rather than protest my personal innocence, the happy medium might be to listen to the stories and heartbreaks--to really listen. Where there was clear error, to express sorrow at the harm caused. Chances are, there will be little need to defend and debate, if we simply show we can listen to those who believe they were hurt by ancestors with whom we have common (or even similar) cause.

[NadiaStar]

I think you're right on that, chaplain. Thanks.