Does The Church Need To Be More Open About Its History?

[mikbone]

I would highly recommend that you read or watch Jeffery R. Holland's recent conference talk.

Lord, I Believe - general-conference

[selek]

As an aside, there is recording of Nibley actually delivering the "House That Jack Built" lecture- under the rubric of "How to Write An Anti-Mormon Book"

http://speeches.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Nibley_Hugh_1962.mp3

The talk is a classic, greatly enhanced by hearing it in the author's own voice.

[Wingnut]

Guilty as charged.

Me too, and I had the same problem. Then I attended Institute, and after a few years, moved to a different state. I continued to attend Institute, but different classes were offered. Then I went on a mission, after which I went back to Institute again. I got married a few years later, and with various calling assignments and baby-nursing schedules, I have still never yet had the opportunity to take a darn D&C class! I thought would get to this year, but no...I was called into Nursery.

I guess it's okay. I live 25 minutes from Kirtland, so if I need my fill of D&C, I can just take a drive and walk around the sites for an hour.

[Anddenex]

I have still never yet had the opportunity to take a darn D&C class! I thought would get to this year, but no...I was called into Nursery.

I guess it's okay. I live 25 minutes from Kirtland, so if I need my fill of D&C, I can just take a drive and walk around the sites for an hour.

Does this mean every four years you decided to choose to be inactive at Church during our Gospel History classes when we discuss the D&C?

[Wingnut]

Does this mean every four years you decided to choose to be inactive at Church during our Gospel History classes when we discuss the D&C?

No, I've either had a calling that otherwise occupied me during Sunday School, or it was a year that I was breastfeeding my daughter still, and she liked to eat during that particular time of day.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know what, Anddenex?

I about had a coronary at the beginning of this year when I was called to teach GD, because I consider myself so Church-history deficient.

Then I started dinking around my computer files and unearthed a bunch of Gospel Doctrine lesson plans I'd written up. From 2005.

Yep. I taught Gospel Doctrine eight years ago, when we were studying Church history. And I didn't remember a bit of it.

[Wingnut]

You know what, Anddenex?

I about had a coronary at the beginning of this year when I was called to teach GD, because I consider myself so Church-history deficient.

Then I started dinking around my computer files and unearthed a bunch of Gospel Doctrine lesson plans I'd written up. From 2003.

Yep. I taught Gospel Doctrine eight years ago, when we were studying Church history. And I didn't remember a bit of it.

Lol!

[EightyEight]

Ah, yes- the usual litany.

EightyEight, you need to understand that none of these "issues" are a problem because the Church does not teach them, but rather are a problem because there is an entire cottage industry intent on making them an issue.

There is a small, but militant industry whose entire reason for being is to undermine and destroy the Church- and these are the main arrows in their quiver- the best that they can come up with in nearly 200 years of serial anti-Mormonism.

Like any craftsman, they have carefully honed their arguments, shaped, and reshaped their reasoning to make these things as sinister, troubling, and damaging as possible.

But each and every one of them is, in and of itself, a tempest in a teapot.

I suggest you check out the following to gain some insight into the basic methodology:

Of All Things! Classic Quotations from Hugh Nibley - Of the Anti-Mormon Tradition

Nibley's "The House That Jack Built" (the final entry- is, in my opinion, the penultimate expose on the technique).

For specific answers to the issues that are troubling you, I refer you to

FAIR

and to

FAIRwiki:Table of contents - FAIRMormon

These articles, analyses, and responses are written by gifted scholars, learned laymen, and bright thinkers- rather than the usual rabble with an axe to grind.

Their answers are predicated on an appeal to the evidence, rather than the incestuous repetition of the same questionable gossip from the same tired, trite rumormongers.

They have been of use to me, and I believe they will be of use to you, as well.

To say that these issues themselves are troubling me is a bit misleading. I am not struggling with my faith. That struggle was long ago, without ever glancing at any document you would categorize as anti-Mormon.

I have stated that I consider FAIR to be a valuable resource I use frequently.

I think your analysis of critics is a caricature. It's easy to think of those who do not support your view as anti- and carry a pitchfork to scratch their horns, but I don't think it reflects reality, here. I think anti-Mormons certainly do exist, just as certainly as those who will defend the Church in any instance exist.

I think if the Church were more open, the "Anti-mormons" would be far less prominent.

[selek]

To say that these issues themselves are troubling me is a bit misleading. I am not struggling with my faith. That struggle was long ago, without ever glancing at any document you would categorize as anti-Mormon.

Yet you come here touting the notion that the Church is the problem- for failing to teach to these issues.

You were asked what troubled you, and responded with the same cut-n-paste litany we've seen hundreds of times.

When asked what troubled you- YOU named these issues.

With due respect, your rationalizations are not consistent with your stated positions.

I think your analysis of critics is a caricature.

As is your analysis of the situation with the Church.

Other than the fact that they arer your caricatures, why are yours valid and mine not?

It's easy to think of those who do not support your view as anti- and carry a pitchfork to scratch their horns, but I don't think it reflects reality, here.

I agree- but of course, that's not what I said or what I implied.

You have fun beating up on that strawman.

I'll wait patiently for a serious, thoughtful response to what I actually said.

I think anti-Mormons certainly do exist, just as certainly as those who will defend the Church in any instance exist.

Ahhh yes, the tu quoque fallacy or "you Mormons are just as bad".

In point of fact, we are not.

You do not see faithful Mormons using misinformation and disinformation in coordinated campaigns to undermine or destroy other Churches or to attack and destroy the testimonies of their adherents.

We do not have a pocket industry designed solely to publish materials for the express purposes of attacking and destroying other religions.

You do not see faithful Mormons trolling the websites of other faiths seeking to stir up trouble, sow dissension, or plant seeds of doubt.

In point of fact, there is an extensive (and growing) anti-Mormon industry: the Tanners and many others have spent most of the last five decades making their living leeching off of those who crave salacious details and high-minded demagoguery to satiate their prejudices.

In nearly every Christian bookstore in the Mountain West, you will find an entire section dedicated to "literature" dedicated to tearing down and destroying the Mormon faith.

The roster of counter-cult "ministries" dedicated to attacking and defaming the Mormon faith is legion, and growing.

Eight out of ten hits for the phrase "Mormon" on YouTube returns a link to a dishonest, misinformed, or simply stupid attack on the Church.

To pretend that this industry does not exist is to be either willfully blind or deliberately deceitful.

Neither is the hallmark of someone interested in an honest conversation.

I think if the Church were more open, the "Anti-mormons" would be far less prominent.

And once again, we cycle back to the notion that the Church is the problem.

You singularly fail to address- or even acknowledge- the inescapable fact that these people engage in such efforts out of self interest.

They write these books, and post these videos because there is a demand for them.

Whether out of ideology or simple greed, believe that they profit from efforts to undermine and attack the Church.

That demand- and self-interest- will not be lessened by the Church scratching their itching ears.

Needless to say, your arguments are not consistent with your claims.

Edited April 10, 2013 by selek

[EightyEight]

Here's a concrete example:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter.

The Friend - Joseph Smith, the Prophet

The Nauvoo Expositor, a local newspaper, added to the Saints’ trouble by printing lies about the Church leaders.

The primary manual says:

Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies.

Can anyone tell me that is upfront and truthful?

Why couldn't it say something like: "William Law, a former prominent member, was not ready to embrace the practice, causing him to doubt Joseph's status as a prophet of God. He then ran a publication that caused a stir among the Saints and others."

Only better written.

[Guest]

Thread closed for moderator review.