Survey: Mormons Want Their History 'inspiring, But Not Sanitized&#

[Maureen]

Survey: Mormons want their history 'inspiring, but not sanitized'

By Peggy Fletcher Stack

The Salt Lake Tribune

You won't see many people in Tuesday's Pioneer Day parade dressed up as one of Brigham Young's polygamous wives or floats touting the Mormon theocrat's view on cooperative economics.

Like all such pageantry, the annual celebration tends to feature an idealized, heroic view of the Mormon pioneers' arrival in Utah on July 24, 1847, and that's the way much of the faith's history has been written, too.

Now a new survey reveals many Mormons want accounts of their history "to be inspiring, but not sanitized," says Rebecca Olpin, director of audience needs for the LDS Family and Church History Department. "They want it to be frank and honest, They are looking for the whole story, accounts of real people, and a wider scope of history than early 19th century pioneers."...

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6422939?source=rss

M.

[StosRob]

Why not? I want to hear about the good as well as the bad. Knowing we are imperfect is reality. My struggles have made me stronger and I am sure many more can say the same. Granted you may not feel too strong as you are struggling, but as I think back, I wouldn't have changed anything if I had the chance.

[pushka]

I think it's a great idea...I look forward to the information being available online.

[Guest Sono_hito]

The leadership doesn't want the truth openly discussed and given to the members. Most who learn the truth leave membership if its a viable option for them. From what ive seen in my personal life, upwards of 90% leave after learning about things they where either not told, or blatantly lied about due to unsavory issues of mormon history.

[CrimsonKairos]

Those same people who leave the Church when presented with historical facts, left because they looked beyond the mark, tripped and fell in the ditch so to speak.

I feel sorry for such people and the blessings they're missing out on.

To each their own, though.

[Elphaba]

. . . upwards of 90% leave after learning about things they where either not told. . . ."

I am an ex-Mormon who knows a few ex-Mormons who learned truths that did cause them to lose their testimony. (I am not one of them.)

But I think 90 percent is far too high a number. I know quite a few Mormons who read the same information and struggled with it, but still maintained their testimonies.

If I had to come up with a percentage, I would say thirty percent.

Elphaba

Later edit: Actually, I'm coming down to twenty percent. E.

Later later edit: I'm not even comfortable with twenty percent. E.

[Guest Yediyd]

I am a Mormon who is slowly learning the ugly truth, I feel a little angry with church leaders for being so secretive and blatantly untruthful...but I also realize that G-d is using imperfect men to teach his perfect truth...mistakes have been made, more will be made...that does not lead me to want to leave this church. I still rely on the Holy Spirit and scripture, and I am still comfortable in this gosple.

[sixpacktr]

I'd like to know what some of these "ugly truths" are...MMM? For years and years people have tried to implicate BY as having masterminded it. JS using a seerstone? So what?? Kind of like us using oil to anoint people with today. It strengthens their faith. Christ did the same thing with spittle and dirt to make the blind man see...

The Danites? Again, for years and years that has been debated. Polygamy, and Joseph doing it while keeping it a secret? Again, so what? He was commanded to do it and did it because of that.

So, what are these ugly truths that have so many people doubting? CK is right. People look beyond the mark and lose out on blessings because they think they've "found" something that negates the whole work...

How sad...

[BenRaines]

Oh I thought it said "90 percent could care less about the secrets" LOL. On this one I age that less than 10% leave when they hear, learn, read about the "ugly truths".

I guess no one would attend any church if they knew the "ugly truths". An excuse to not to have to do anything. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Ben Raines

[Doctor Steuss]

I'd like to know what some of these "ugly truths" are...MMM? For years and years people have tried to implicate BY as having masterminded it.

And as of yet, the evidence points away from him. Scott Lloyd wrote a fantastic article in the Church News (about 3 or so weeks ago) in which he interviewed Turley on the subject. Soon, the Turley et.al. publication will be out (or at least volume 1) and hopefully it will finally put the "Brigham was behind it" theories to rest.

JS using a seerstone?

This is far from hidden (same with the translation method). I know of two Ensign articles that have spoken about it (and I think there was a conference talk that mentioned it as well).

[CrimsonKairos]

Yed, in what ways do you think Church leaders have been blatantly deceptive?

[Maureen]

I am a Mormon who is slowly learning the ugly truth, I feel a little angry with church leaders for being so secretive and blatantly untruthful...but I also realize that G-d is using imperfect men to teach his perfect truth...mistakes have been made, more will be made...that does not lead me to want to leave this church. I still rely on the Holy Spirit and scripture, and I am still comfortable in this gosple.

I'm usually surprised when LDS members will say that plural marriage was unknown to them, whether they were converts or BIC. I met my LDS friend in 1975 and started taking discussions late 1976. By the time I started the discussions, I knew about plural marriage, blacks/priesthood, exaltation, doctrine of becoming a god (I mention exaltation and gods because those are doctrines so different than what I grew up learning). So I'm wondering, what changed since then and now that many LDS members are surprised about things like plural marriage because they had no idea that it is a big part of LDS history.

M.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

I am a Mormon who is slowly learning the ugly truth, I feel a little angry with church leaders for being so secretive and blatantly untruthful...but I also realize that G-d is using imperfect men to teach his perfect truth...mistakes have been made, more will be made...that does not lead me to want to leave this church. I still rely on the Holy Spirit and scripture, and I am still comfortable in this gosple.

I'm usually surprised when LDS members will say that plural marriage was unknown to them, whether they were converts or BIC. I met my LDS friend in 1975 and started taking discussions late 1976. By the time I started the discussions, I knew about plural marriage, blacks/priesthood, exaltation, doctrine of becoming a god (I mention exaltation and gods because those are doctrines so different than what I grew up learning). So I'm wondering, what changed since then and now that many LDS members are surprised about things like plural marriage because they had no idea that it is a big part of LDS history.

M.

You are lucky...that was not my experience...I live in NY, my missionaries were bent on baptism...they spent so much time refuting my Baptist indoctrination and endless arguments from a Baptist point of view...they neglected to teach me things that WOULD HAVE TURNED ME AWAY had they brought them up!!! If they started in with baptisms for the dead. or becoming gods...I would have run far and fast from the church because this was in direct opposition to the Baptist upbringing that I had...so, maybe the mission president TOLD them to be careful in what I was taught before I was baptised....regardless...I have learned it as I have gained my testimony and I have been able to absorb it slowly...I believe this was the wisdom of G-d that this is how I was brought in...yes, I feel like I was "duped", but not really...I was only duped if this church is not true...and I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT IT IS!!!

[Fiannan]

Sad to say but Sono_Hito does bring up some interesting and relevant points. Why do I say that? Well...

The problem is that if you sanitize "so to speak" history then the danger is that the people who want to tear you down will be the ones who are bringing the "truth" to light -- but they will do it in such a way as to try to destroy one's faith in leaders. Then they will be the ones who will then call what the leaders taught or said or lived bad or evil. Danger is, if you hide things from members then it may destroy people's faith if it is revealed by those with a negative agenda.

Look at discussions we have had here about birth control or polygamy. Fifty years ago if someone said having a large family was ideal few people would have questioned that opinion -- they might not have agreed with it but it would have been mainstream enough to be considered a polite view to have and express in mixed company.

In today's "modern" world if you express this view you risk being called an anti-feminist, a Neandertal, or even a racist. Maybe this is why the Church tip toes around the issue of birth control. Danger is, that if young people have not heard the Church doctrine expressed and discussed there are many who will react quite negatively and even hostile if they look at a quote from a church leader from the past condemning birth control.

Same with polygamy. Live it, or don't live it...look forward to its return or shudder at the thought, but it was not and is not immoral if we use the Bible as our compass. However, if we try to erase 26 out of Brigham Young's 27 wives the same way the Chinese will take official photoes from encyclopedias and photoshop out someone who feel into disfavor with the party line then we do our history and people's testimonies a disservice.

[Guest Yediyd]

Yed, in what ways do you think Church leaders have been blatantly deceptive?

BY covering up and changing church history...the several different accounts of the first vision, The number of JS's wives, the fact that he was dishonest with Emma about those wives...the whole MMM incident, the Kinderhook plates incident. When I read church history from the books in our church library...NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE AVAILIBLE TO ME!!!

I knew nothing about the Journal of discourses....I found all this stuff on-line in the last three months...but in three years...I have not heard of ANY OF THIS!!!

I believe that the not so easy to explain things are not openly discussed, at least...not in MY ward.

Sad to say but Sono_Hito does bring up some interesting and relevant points. Why do I say that? Well...

The problem is that if you sanitize "so to speak" history then the danger is that the people who want to tear you down will be the ones who are bringing the "truth" to light -- but they will do it in such a way as to try to destroy one's faith in leaders. Then they will be the ones who will then call what the leaders taught or said or lived bad or evil. Danger is, if you hide things from members then it may destroy people's faith if it is revealed by those with a negative agenda.

Look at discussions we have had here about birth control or polygamy. Fifty years ago if someone said having a large family was ideal few people would have questioned that opinion -- they might not have agreed with it but it would have been mainstream enough to be considered a polite view to have and express in mixed company.

In today's "modern" world if you express this view you risk being called an anti-feminist, a Neandertal, or even a racist. Maybe this is why the Church tip toes around the issue of birth control. Danger is, that if young people have not heard the Church doctrine expressed and discussed there are many who will react quite negatively and even hostile if they look at a quote from a church leader from the past condemning birth control.

Same with polygamy. Live it, or don't live it...look forward to its return or shudder at the thought, but it was not and is not immoral if we use the Bible as our compass. However, if we try to erase 26 out of Brigham Young's 27 wives the same way the Chinese will take official photoes from encyclopedias and photoshop out someone who feel into disfavor with the party line then we do our history and people's testimonies a disservice.

Fiannan...I agree 100% with what you just said!!! I won't lose my testimony...but I feel angry that it was anti-Mormons who brought this stuff to my attention.

[Doctor Steuss]

-------Begin Sarcasm-------

The Mission of the Church:

Proclaim the gospel.

Perfect the Saints.

Redeem the dead.

And the newly added fourth item:

Increase Sunday's to five hours to accommodate history lessons.

-------End Sarcasm-------

In regards to doctrines, I don't think the Church "whitewashes" them and/or hides them. There are just some doctrines that one must discover on your own. There was a reason Christ spoke in parables.

Now, as to history... There are basically three types of history. The first two types are easy to produce and are what are usually encountered:

Type A: What the Church mainly produces in its manuals. Usually, if it isn't faith-promoting, it is omitted.

Type B: What anti-Mormons mainly produce. Usually, if it doesn't demonize the Church, it is omitted.

Type C: A "happy" median between the two. It provides the faith promoting information as well as the non-faith promoting and/or "colorful" aspects of the Church's history. Type C isn't completely non-existent (Bushman has produced some highly praised Type C history). It can be found, but you must do a bit of searching for it. This survey seems to me to be a longing for more Type C history. Unfortunately, with Type C history, it’s usually not faith promoting enough for some and too faith promoting for others.

[Guest Yediyd]

-------Begin Sarcasm-------

The Mission of the Church:

Proclaim the gospel.

Perfect the Saints.

Redeem the dead.

And the newly added fourth item:

Increase Sunday's to five hours to accommodate history lessons.

-------End Sarcasm-------

In regards to doctrines, I don't think the Church "whitewashes" them and/or hides them. There are just some doctrines that one must discover on your own. There was a reason Christ spoke in parables.

Now, as to history... There are basically three types of history. The first two types are easy to produce and are what are usually encountered:

Type A: What the Church mainly produces in its manuals. Usually, if it isn't faith-promoting, it is omitted.

Type B: What anti-Mormons mainly produce. Usually, if it doesn't demonize the Church, it is omitted.

Type C: A "happy" median between the two. It provides the faith promoting information as well as the non-faith promoting and/or "colorful" aspects of the Church's history. Type C isn't completely non-existent (Bushman has produced some highly praised Type C history). It can be found, but you must do a bit of searching for it. This survey seems to me to be a longing for more Type C history. Unfortunately, with Type C history, it's usually not faith promoting enough for some and too faith promoting for others.

You know what Dr. S...I resent this post!!! I think that the "faith promoting" omission of "colorful" facts. Is what almost made me lose my testimony!!! I felt lied to!!! I believe this is what Satan will use to pull away the very elect....because this information is now readily available on the Internet...we would do our members a service to teach the truth at home, before they find out the scewed "truth" from anti-Mormons!!!

This idea of "hiding" or "omitting" the truth, just builds resentment and hurt when members find that they have been misinformed, "for their own good".

I don't believe we need a five hour church service...just honest records and truthful history books.

[Doctor Steuss]

BY covering up and changing church history...the several different accounts of the first vision,

There was a recent article in the Church News by Scott Lloyd on the different accounts of the First Vision.

Also, the first 75 or so pages of Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844, edited by Jack W. Welch (which was jointly published in 2005 by BYU Press and Deseret Book) are devoted to ""The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph's Smith's First Vision" (and a detailed analysis of them). Also, a chapter in the book that talks about the varying accounts is basically an update of an article written by James B. Allen that was published in the Improvement Era (which I believe later became the Ensign) in 1970.

You might find this useful: Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony (by Elden J. Watson), and this: Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith (by Richard Lloyd Anderson).

MMM incident

From the LDS Newsroom June 19, 2007; The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Also, I'm sure I already mentioned Scott Lloyd's recent article in the Church News on it.

[Shade]

ok, so i'm being lazy here & pasting something i just posted in a another thread. cos it refers to the nature of the "imperfect man"...

from Mormon chapter 9

11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.

13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.

if i'm reading this correctly, HF created Adam and then allowed him to make a mistake, which allowed the Earth to become populated, which allowed our Saviour to be born, and as Adam will be judged for his sins, so shall we all be judged. which is kinda the whole point of our existence ont his Earth, right?

so where would we be if HF did not allow our leaders to make mistakes?

*edit*

oooh-oooh-oooh... and then there is THISline, too... Moroni & his dad also had their shortcomings...

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]BY covering up and changing church history[...]the Kinderhook plates incident. [...]

Sorry, I missed this one in my other post. See Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax (by Stanley Kimball) -- This was published in the Ensign (August 1981, beginning on page 66).

[CrimsonKairos]

Yediyd, the missionaries are sent to preach the gospel...which is the good news that if we have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, are baptized for the remission of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...we are on the path to salvation.

They are not supposed to sit down and say, "Okay, here's a run-down of all the LDS History that anti-mormons like to use against us. Let's begin with the Book of Mormon plagiarism theory..."

Now Yed, if you had asked the missionaries, "Did Joseph Smith have lots of wives," and if they had said no...then that'd be lying.

I have a really hard time with your position, to wit, that Church leaders lied to you. If you asked them a question and they withheld the answer, that is a lie. Did you ask about the belief regarding becoming gods, or Joseph Smith's polygamy, etc...? If not, how can you claim anyone lied to you?

Most people don't even read the Book of Mormon regularly...yet the Church is supposed to inundate them with history about stuff that's irrelevant to salvation? The Church correctly focuses on teaching the principles of salvation and endeavoring to help us live them.

They are not supposed to explain every anti-mormon argument away to our satisfaction. That is simply not why the Lord restored His Church.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

BY covering up and changing church history...the several different accounts of the first vision,

There was a recent article in the Church News by Scott Lloyd on the different accounts of the First Vision.

Also, the first 75 or so pages of Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844, edited by Jack W. Welch (which was jointly published in 2005 by BYU Press and Deseret Book) are devoted to ""The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph's Smith's First Vision" (and a detailed analysis of them). Also, a chapter in the book that talks about the varying accounts is basically an update of an article written by James B. Allen that was published in the Improvement Era (which I believe later became the Ensign) in 1970.

You might find this useful: Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony (by Elden J. Watson), and this: Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith (by Richard Lloyd Anderson).

MMM incident

From the LDS Newsroom June 19, 2007; The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Also, I'm sure I already mentioned Scott Lloyd's recent article in the Church News on it. Thank you for those links...I am in no way saying that I am ready to leave the church!!! Just that I did not come into contact with ANY of this information till I got my computer three months ago...and when I brought this stuff up at church...I was advised to just stay away from this and any other site that spreads this stuff (Direct quote) I did not listen because I wanted to be informed and I love this site. I'm glad I did not listen because I feel much more informed and STRONGER in my faith, now. I just feel that in my ward...I was NOT INCOURAGED to find these ugly truths.

[CrimsonKairos]

You shouldn't be encouraged to, Yed, because as had been pointed out, the ones telling the stories are usually anti's who twist words or rape context to make the Church look bad.

Why seek it out? Why not spend more time reading the scriptures, pondering eternal principles, etc...? I don't know why you feel so desperate to expose yourself to so much garbage. If you want Church history, why not buy the History of the Church (7 vols.) written by Joseph Smith and completed/edited by others. It's got alot of stuff you don't hear in Church because it's not important to hear it in Church, but it can be interesting.

[Doctor Steuss]

You shouldn't be encouraged to, Yed, because as had been pointed out, the ones telling the stories are usually anti's who twist words or rape context to make the Church look bad.

[...]

I want to take this and give an ancient parallel. Anti-Christians in the early centuries had a somewhat common criticism that they would use to “warn” others in order to keep them from joining the Christians.

“Christians ritualistically cannibalize the flesh of their God and drink His blood.”

Is the above correct? Technically yes. But you can see how it could potentially repulse someone who did not know the meaning, reason, symbolism and beauty of the sacrament. Anti-Mormons do the same with LDS history and doctrines.

Yediyd,

Many of these "truths" shed their ugliness when presented from those who are not out to "warn." BTW, when you say "this site," are you saying they told you to avoid LDSTalk?

[Guest Yediyd]

Yediyd, the missionaries are sent to preach the gospel...which is the good news that if we have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, are baptized for the remission of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...we are on the path to salvation.

They are not supposed to sit down and say, "Okay, here's a run-down of all the LDS History that anti-mormons like to use against us. Let's begin with the Book of Mormon plagiarism theory..."

Now Yed, if you had asked the missionaries, "Did Joseph Smith have lots of wives," and if they had said no...then that'd be lying.

I have a really hard time with your position, to wit, that Church leaders lied to you. If you asked them a question and they withheld the answer, that is a lie. Did you ask about the belief regarding becoming gods, or Joseph Smith's polygamy, etc...? If not, how can you claim anyone lied to you?

Most people don't even read the Book of Mormon regularly...yet the Church is supposed to inundate them with history about stuff that's irrelevant to salvation? The Church correctly focuses on teaching the principles of salvation and endeavoring to help us live them.

They are not supposed to explain every anti-Mormon argument away to our satisfaction. That is simply not why the Lord restored His Church.

CK, I was so excited about this church when I first joined...that I read everything I could get my hands on and I asked the guy in charge of the stake education department of the church. The first thing he gave me to read was the Work and The Glory series...A very nice FITION series of NOVELS!!! I was then given the church study guides and a book on church history. I soaked up all the old ensigns that I was given, I read the BoM TWICE that first year!!! I went to seminary even though I was technically too old to go...they let me because I wanted to learn all I could...while I was eating all this stuff up and asking Br.So n so about church history, no...he did not lie to me...but he neglected to tell me or direct me to places where I could find for myself out these things. He was the man I went to when this stuff came to light...he advised me to just stay away from these sites...I feel like, no...I was not lied to...I need to apologize for saying that...but OMISSION was purposely used to slow me down because I was a little too zealous!!! I might add...that I was called into the Bishop's office and told to "chill" when one of the ladies in the seminary class was angry with me for asking too many questions and monopolizing the whole class.

I LOVE this church and I was ON FIRE from the very first day...Br. So n so...called me the poster child of a convert of this church....but my enthusiasm was held back and I was told NUMEROUS TIMES, "milk before meat" when I asked for more.

I STILL LOVE THIS church...but I needed some time to get over my initial anger...I am over it now, but I still believe that the approach that was used with me, hurt me...but not enough to break me...and what doesn't break you....makes so STRONGER!!!

<div class='quotemain'>

You shouldn't be encouraged to, Yed, because as had been pointed out, the ones telling the stories are usually anti's who twist words or rape context to make the Church look bad.

[...]

I want to take this and give an ancient parallel. Anti-Christians in the early centuries had a somewhat common criticism that they would use to "warn" others in order to keep them from joining the Christians.

"Christians ritualistically cannibalize the flesh of their God and drink His blood."

Is the above correct? Technically yes. But you can see how it could potentially repulse someone who did not know the meaning, reason, symbolism and beauty of the sacrament. Anti-Mormons do the same with LDS history and doctrines.

Yediyd,

Many of these "truths" shed their ugliness when presented from those who are not out to "warn." BTW, when you say "this site," are you saying they told you to avoid LDSTalk? Yes, I was told to avoid all bulletin boards because that would bring out slanted versions of the "truth" and I needed to just concentrate on the scriptures as I believe CK just said...I felt like that was a way to further sweep this stuff away from me...so I did not take that advise...I am still here...AGAINST PRIESTHOOD ADVISE...so, I guess I was in sin with that and still am.

Please understand...it was my zealousness that got me so excited about this church...I have loved the lord for a lot of years...I spent my whole adult life in some sort of church or another...I checked out many churches....I am still zealouse...I am into teaching myself Hebrew right now...because I LOVE to learn and I want to learn the Holy language...I sometimes bite off more than I can chew...but G-d knows my heart, and most of you up here have come to know it too as you have read my post...I am not an anti...and I am not even angry any more...but I had a point of view and I shared it...I still feel the way that I do.

Now, I will concentrait on learning the TRUTH, not the SLANTED truth.