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

[EightyEight]

Hi everyone.

Open disclosure: I am an inactive member. I haven't been a believer since my teen years, but I consider myself a friend to the Church.

Recently, about seven years after I ceased active membership, I became intensively interested in the history of the Church. I was floored by some of items which I did not hear in seminary and Sunday school.

I don't want too sound dramatic, but the best way to describe by feelings is betrayed. Why was I not allowed to to learn of these events, I wondered.

Which brings me to my question: does the Church need to do a better job of presenting this information so that others don't experience the shock that I did? I can see how it could develop some enemies of the Church.

[skalenfehl]

There have always been books available and now Google, blogs, etc. The Church's function is to bring us to Christ. If we're not at least doing this, we can always study and research on our own. The church has plenty of history books.

[Guest]

Not presenting information is not the same as prohibiting people from having it. So it's not that you "weren't allowed". The Church has a 3-fold mission, and uses its time and curriculum to push those things forward:

The Three-Fold Mission of the Church is:

Proclaim the Gospel

Perfect the Saints

Redeem the Dead

[Anddenex]

The shock we experience is actually more a result of our "imagination" and how we picture the Church, or how we fill in the missing information.

Elder Holland mentioned that the Church, when speaking at Harvard (if I am remembering correctly) about how the Church could do better ourselves to correct misinformation.

However, the history we do have from our Church is from published materials by members of the Church or the Church itself.

Enemies will develop no matter what the Church does, there will always be someone to call the efforts of the Church apologetic.

I am sorry you felt betrayed. They teach the necessary gospel doctrines in order for a person to find salvation. Beyond that, this is a personal responsibility to learn.

[EightyEight]

There have always been books available and now Google, blogs, etc. The Church's function is to bring us to Christ. If we're not at least doing this, we can always study and research on our own. The church has plenty of history books.

Thanks for the reply.

I am, of course, aware of the existence of books.

But the subject of Google and blogs is more towards my point. Since member in this time will inevitably wander upon some of these sources, isn't it in the best interest of the Church to control their first experience with this information?

[Guest]

Thanks for the reply.

I am, of course, aware of the existence of books.

But the subject of Google and blogs is more towards my point. Since member in this time will inevitably wander upon some of these sources, isn't it in the best interest of the Church to control their first experience with this information?

How do you suggest they do this?

[Vort]

Hi everyone.

Open disclosure: I am an inactive member. I haven't been a believer since my teen years, but I consider myself a friend to the Church.

Recently, about seven years after I ceased active membership, I became intensively interested in the history of the Church. I was floored by some of items which I did not hear in seminary and Sunday school.

I don't want too sound dramatic, but the best way to describe by feelings is betrayed. Why was I not allowed to to learn of these events, I wondered.

Which brings me to my question: does the Church need to do a better job of presenting this information so that others don't experience the shock that I did? I can see how it could develop some enemies of the Church.

There is a concept called "inoculation", familiar to every attorney, which involves letting people (in the attorney's case, the jury) know certain facts that the other side might portray badly and that might prejudice the listeners, if it's not laid out openly to begin with or if it's treated as some sort of shameful secret.

I agree that a certain amount of "inoculation" would be useful. For example, I have heard from some converts that they never heard that Mormons used to practice polygamy. This claim was nearly unbelievable to me, but I heard of several people that reported this, so maybe it's true. Of course, you cannot possibly read the Doctrine and Covenants with any attention whatsoever and still fail to realize that the early Church practiced polygamy. You cannot study Church history to any major degree without realizing that. But somehow, these converts never stumbled across the information, so, like you, they felt betrayed when they found out, like someone had been keeping secrets.

I do believe the Church is trying to proactively inform its members of certain historical facts and realities, rather than just let the Church's enemies make of them what they will.

However, it must be realized that the Church's purpose is to bring people to Christ by preaching his gospel. The Church does not exist to educate people in historical happenings or circumstance, any more than it exists to educate people in medicine.

The vast majority of the "scandalous" histories of the Church dredged up by its enemies is exaggerated, or taken out of context, or completely false. If you want to be a historian, go for it, but don't limit your education to accounts written by enemies of the Church. And if you don't want to go to all that work, that's fine, too -- but then, don't believe the crap you hear spewed by the enemies of the Church. Stay away from it.

[EightyEight]

Not presenting information is not the same as prohibiting people from having it. So it's not that you "weren't allowed". The Church has a 3-fold mission, and uses its time and curriculum to push those things forward:

I understand that, but it's not as if church resources were not used to teach me the history of the Church. But I now find the material that was presented to be at best selective and at worst in opposition of history.

The counsel against antimormon literature, as it was framed to me, limited my willingness to do independent research. Though I can see how that one is on me.

[EightyEight]

How do you suggest they do this?

I am currently reading Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" and I find it to be a great read. It presents the facts within a believer's perspective, which is great! I think such literature should be actively promoted to the Church's youth. In my experience, that was not the case.

I think that seminary and Sunday school lessons could follow suit, presenting the facts, but framed accordingly.

[HiJolly]

I have a very hard time feeling sympathy for you, Eighty-Eight. Although I do agree the Church needs to do a better job of informing its membership of the gaps that currently exist.

I think CES (Seminaries and Institutes) is where this should occur, and NOT at church.

HiJolly

[Dravin]

For example, I have heard from some converts that they never heard that Mormons used to practice polygamy. This claim was nearly unbelievable to me, but I heard of several people that reported this, so maybe it's true.

I think my incredulity would be in proportion to how long they've been a member. A member of a couple years? I can see that. A member of 20 years? I'd find that rather shocking and wonder how it never came up in all that time.

However, it must be realized that the Church's purpose is to bring people to Christ by preaching his gospel. The Church does not exist to educate people in historical happenings or circumstance, any more than it exists to educate people in medicine.

One issue is time. While I think some inoculation could be done without changing things too much, a true historical treatment would require either a longer block or the sacrifice of time currently spent on other aspects of the current 3-hour block. At least if we're going to try and put it front and center as opposed to say making it a periodic 6 week class, but that still going to take people and resources away from other aspects of Church.

The vast majority of the "scandalous" histories of the Church dredged up by its enemies is exaggerated, or taken out of context, or completely false.

This is an issue too. Are you going to try and cover all the anti fabrications, accusations, and misconstructions out there in this hypothetical Church history class? If yes, you're no longer a Church history class, you're an apologetics class.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Dravin

[EightyEight]

I didn't expect so many replies so quickly. Thanks everyone!

I agree that a certain amount of "inoculation" would be useful. For example, I have heard from some converts that they never heard that Mormons used to practice polygamy. This claim was nearly unbelievable to me, but I heard of several people that reported this, so maybe it's true. Of course, you cannot possibly read the Doctrine and Covenants with any attention whatsoever and still fail to realize that the early Church practiced polygamy. You cannot study Church history to any major degree without realizing that. But somehow, these converts never stumbled across the information, so, like you, they felt betrayed when they found out, like someone had been keeping secrets.

I would suggest that this is an instance of people simply not paying attention to what is being taught (or alternatively, teachers avoiding more controversial teachings). When I was in seminary, polygamy was in the manual.

There are many subjects on which I feel could the manuals should follow suit.

The vast majority of the "scandalous" histories of the Church dredged up by its enemies is exaggerated, or taken out of context, or completely false. If you want to be a historian, go for it, but don't limit your education to accounts written by enemies of the Church. And if you don't want to go to all that work, that's fine, too -- but then, don't believe the crap you hear spewed by the enemies of the Church. Stay away from it.

I always like to view both sides of the page. Whenever I read some controversial information (which was common in what I call my "Shock and Awe" stage) my next step was always to read what FairMormon had to say about the subject. FairMormon often gets a bad reputation, however, I value the work they do even if I in most cases I disagree with the conclusion they come to.

Like a jury in a court of law, I found the best course of action for me was to view both sides making their case using the facts, and I decide which makes the most sense for me. In many cases, I have found the critics arguments to be ambitious and/o inflammatory.

[EightyEight]

I have a very hard time feeling sympathy for you, Eighty-Eight. Although I do agree the Church needs to do a better job of informing its membership of the gaps that currently exist.

I think CES (Seminaries and Institutes) is where this should occur, and NOT at church.

HiJolly

I'm not after sympathy. I can't imagine why someone would feel sympathy for me.

Its seems like you agree with my point though. Do you agree that CES currently falls short in this regard?

[HiJolly]

I don't have many complaints with the Church, but I do think CES falls short in many ways. In the Mormon Corridor, it's the closest thing we have to a paid ministry, although I grant that the teachers don't function as priests (thank God!).

OTOH, I really enjoyed my years in Seminary and Institute - I just think they are in a prime position to teach a more informed curricula. For example, I think they should explain the trinity (as opposed to modalism) and other theological concepts. I think they should help students understand the documentary hypothesis, the mystical foundation of the Bible, and much more.

[Vort]

FairMormon often gets a bad reputation

Only from liars and antiMormons. But I repeat myself.

[EightyEight]

Only from liars and antiMormons. But I repeat myself.

How would you define an antiMormon?

I think its a net too widely cast, in many cases.

[Suzie]

Hi EightyEight. I consider myself to be an LDS amateur historian, I truly love researching, studying and writing about Church history. Having said that, it is a lot of work and is extensive. Church classes could never cover everything appropriately and yes CES could do a better job with their curriculum but I also believe it is the responsibility of each member/potential member to find out more about the Church prior to baptism.

[Suzie]

I don't want too sound dramatic, but the best way to describe by feelings is betrayed. Why was I not allowed to to learn of these events, I wondered.

.

What events are you referring to?

[EightyEight]

Hi EightyEight. I consider myself to be an LDS amateur historian, I truly love researching, studying and writing about Church history. Having said that, it is a lot of work and is extensive. Church classes could never cover everything appropriately and yes CES could do a better job with their curriculum but I also believe it is the responsibility of each member/potential member to find out more about the Church prior to baptism.

I was baptized when I was 8, so I didn't have the research ability to uncover a balanced history of the Church.

I think, ideally, every member should get this at minimum before serving a mission or getting married in the temple. I guess we disagree as to what responsibility the Church has in guiding them there.

[Just_A_Guy]

The more stuff I hear and the more I compare it with the Church's published view of things (I'm thinking especially, but not exclusively, of the Church History institute manual); the more I realize that--at least in the last couple of decades--the Church's presentation of its history hasn't been half bad. The problem is the forum in which that presentation occurs; and the fact that a lot of us Mormons simply don't have the time or interest to go beyond whatever basic forum the Church offers.

I agree that we can't let apologetics completely hijack Sunday School. On the other hand--I'm currently teaching Gospel Doctrine and it's the Church History year; and I'm really scratching my head over the approach the manual takes. It primarily follows a thematic, not a chronological, outline; and I think as long as it continues to do so we're going to have a lot of Church members who are only semi-literate in Mormon history and will be blindsided even by relatively basic "revelations" that really should be common knowledge.

(I can't really comment on the Seminary curriculum, because when I was a kid due to some kind of re-alignment of curriculum we wound up doing Book of Mormon twice and skipped the D&C entirely.)

Edited April 10, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

(I can't really comment on the Seminary curriculum, because when I was a kid due to some kind of re-alignment of curriculum we wound up doing Book of Mormon twice and skipped the D&C entirely.)

Did you graduate high school in 1998?

[EightyEight]

What events are you referring to?

There are lots, but the things I found most troubling were:

- The events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith

- Joseph's past prior to the restoration

- Issues regarding translation (BoA, Kinderhook)

- Different accounts of the First Vision

- Many things Brigham Young said

- Mark Hofmann (though this would be totally out of place in any Church meeting)

[Just_A_Guy]

Did you graduate high school in 1998?

Guilty as charged.

[Suzie]

I think the mistake that a lot of people commit when reading Church history is trying to analyze it based on our present modern-day standards rather than 19th century way of thinking.

On the other hand--I'm currently teaching Gospel Doctrine and it's the Church History year; and I'm really scratching my head over the approach the manual takes. It primarily follows a thematic, not a chronological, outline; and I think as long as it continues to do so we're going to have a lot of Church members who are only semi-literate in Mormon history and will be blindsided even by relatively basic "revelations" that really should be common knowledge.

My current Gospel Doctrine teacher is a convert of four years. I see her struggling every Sunday as she tries her best to present the information she admitted doesn't know but that she is "learning along" with the class. Having said that, a lot of questions from the class go simply unanswered.

[selek]

There are lots, but the things I found most troubling were:

- The events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith

- Joseph's past prior to the restoration

- Issues regarding translation (BoA, Kinderhook)

- Different accounts of the First Vision

- Many things Brigham Young said

- Mark Hofmann (though this would be totally out of place in any Church meeting)

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.