Why “Saints” Is More Than Something to Re-Gift to Your History Buff Father in Law

[Third Hour]

It's been almost a hundred years since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published a book about the Church's history. Now, the first volume of Saints is out in its entirety and only a click away. But Saints isn't meant to even out your wobbly table or be re-gifted to your history-buff father in law because you forgot his birthday. Saints has a lot to offer. Comprehensive history A while back I wrote a rather critical article about an ongoing problem in the Church. With the development of the internet, Latter-day Saints are being exposed to a lot of the historical criticisms of the Church, many of which are cunning mixtures of truth and error. In past years, the Church hasn't said much about those issues for a few reasons (in my opinion): 1.) There are more important things to be teaching, like faith in Jesus Christ. 2.) Some things we simply don't have answers for. 3.) Every organization, even the Church, wants to put their best foot forward. It makes sense to put tough issues (even...

View the full article

[NeuroTypical]

Quote

 In past years, the Church hasn’t said much about those issues...

Just to make sure we all know what the church has been saying about these issues...

Gospel Topics Essays

 

Quote

 

Essay Topics

• Are Mormons Christian?
• Becoming Like God
• Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Book of Mormon Translation
• First Vision Accounts
• Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women
• Mother in Heaven
• Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints
• Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Race and the Priesthood
• Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

 

 

[Vort]

Kudos to Snell for a decent article touching on this subject. But it ultimately (IMO) misses the point. If there are points of difficulty in Church history, they are not that Joseph Smith married a fifteen-year-old, or that Brigham Young cursed on occasion, or that the Saints brought tobacco with them as part of their required provisions going west, or that BYU dress standards include men being clean-shaven, or that African blacks were denied the blessings and responsibilities of Priesthood and temple blessings, or any of the other nonsense that people get so worked up about today.

Or, more correctly, for some people those issues are the problem. Such people are spiritually immature. They are worrying about the wrong things.

This is easy to say, because it's perfectly (and obviously) true. But that same obvious truthfulness makes it a bit less than helpful. We're all spiritually immature, and we all get upset about the wrong things. Can you imagine getting upset at Church doctrine and storming out of the meetinghouse, never to return, because no one ever mentioned that Joseph Smith didn't wear a beard? What an astoundingly stupid reason to apostatize from the Church and the gospel it carries, right? Only if you had been raised your whole life in the Middle East and had been deeply influenced by Muslim thought, that might not be quite so stupid after all. But it's still stupid. That's the point.

There is exactly and only one solution to this problem: You need to receive a divine revelation to your heart. We call it a "testimony". With that, you can survive any such silly doubts, no matter how momentous they may seem. Without it, you will flounder, no matter how easy your path.

[lostinwater]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or, more correctly, for some people those issues are the problem. Such people are spiritually immature. They are worrying about the wrong things.

This is easy to say, because it's perfectly (and obviously) true.

i don't mean this to be argumentative.  But i really don't understand this.  

On what basis is it obviously true if history doesn't matter?

How can history matter (for validating it's very profound assertions) and yet at the same time not matter (for invalidating it's very profound assertions)?  Or is the emotional witness enough to make any troubling history like this an irrelevant detail?  It just seems like a really one-way street.

Honestly, i question what the difference is between faith and persistent delusion.  And i'm talking as much about myself anyone.  i mean, i'll defend the concepts of God and Jesus even when someone else presents me with evidence to the contrary.  And in fairness, the evidence they present is probably largely historically accurate.

Apologies in advance if i am misinterpreting what you were trying to convey (this is likely).

[Vort]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

I don't mean this to be argumentative.  But i really don't understand this.  

On what basis is it obviously true if history doesn't matter?

I guess I'm not understanding the question. In what sense is it that "history doesn't matter"? By "history", do you mean the record of what happened in the past, or do you mean what really happened in the past?

I had thought my statement was obvious enough to stand on its own. Perhaps that's wrong. Can you elucidate which part(s) you find confusing?

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

How can history matter (for validating it's very profound assertions) and yet at the same time not matter (for invalidating it's very profound assertions)?

Again, I appear to be missing your point. I don't think I said anything about history per se. In my opinion, "history" in Sense 1 above is of only tangential importance, while "history" in Sense 2 is synonymous with "truth" and is all-important.

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Or is the emotional witness enough to make any troubling history like this an irrelevant detail?

I'm confused yet again. I said nothing about an "emotional witness". I spoke of a testimony, which is a revelatory or spiritual witness -- a far different thing.

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

It just seems like a really one-way street.

In what sense?

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Honestly, i question what the difference is between faith and persistent delusion.

Though it may strike you as circular, I think the difference is stark by definition: It is impossible to have faith in a false thing.

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

And i'm talking as much about myself anyone.  i mean, i'll defend the concepts of God and Jesus even when someone else presents me with evidence to the contrary.  And in fairness, the evidence they present is probably largely historically accurate.

Interesting. Personally, I have never heard any historically related argument against the existence of God or Jesus that held even an ounce of credibility. Those who say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed might as well say that Ptolemy or Euclid or Rameses never existed.

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Apologies in advance if i am misinterpreting what you were trying to convey (this is likely).

No apologies necessary. My point was that we worry about the wrong things. This seems so self-evident to me that I didn't think the statement needed support. If it does, I'll try to illustrate that, in almost all cases, we worry about the wrong things. This is as true in social, cultural, political, literary, and even scientific questions as it is in matters of religion and history.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Vort

[lostinwater]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I guess I'm not understanding the question. In what sense is it that "history doesn't matter"? By "history", do you mean the record of what happened in the past, or do you mean what really happened in the past?

 I had thought my statement was obvious enough to stand on its own. Perhaps that's wrong. Can you elucidate which part(s) you find confusing?

Again, I appear to be missing your point. I don't think I said anything about history per se. In my opinion, "history" in Sense 1 above is of only tangential importance, while "history" in Sense 2 is synonymous with "truth" and is all-important.

I'm confused yet again. I said nothing about an "emotional witness". I spoke of a testimony, which is a revelatory or spiritual witness -- a far different thing.

In what sense?

Though it may strike you as circular, I think the difference is stark by definition: It is impossible to have faith in a false thing.

Interesting. Personally, I have never heard any historically related argument against the existence of God or Jesus that held even an ounce of credibility. Those who say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed might as well say that Ptolemy or Euclid or Rameses never existed.

No apologies necessary. My point was that we sorry about the wrong things. This seems so self-evident to me that I didn't think the statement needed support. If it does, I'll try to illustrate that, in almost all cases, we worry about the wrong things. This is as true in social, cultural, political, literary, and even scientific questions as it is in matters of religion and history.

Thanks @Vort

i think this statement you made clarifies.

"I said nothing about an "emotional witness". I spoke of a testimony, which is a revelatory or spiritual witness -- a far different thing."

It's not been my experience that revelatory/spiritual witnesses can be accurately classified/separated from emotional witness/experiences.  But if that is how someone sees it, then i see how you could make the statements you did.

As far as God and Jesus, i definitely don't think there is much of a historical argument for Jesus not existing.  However, there are some pretty strong challenges on how much one can trust the sources that wrote the bible - and how much what they wrote is just a reflection of their own biases.  Challenges that include material that made it past the JST.  Actually, this understanding of just how the bible was created and has evolved over time has helped me tremendously in taking things with a bit more salt than i had in the past.  

Anyways, appreciate your willingness to clarify.  i don't share the same beliefs, but you explaining things further helps me understand how you could make the statements you did and still find them as being internally consistent with one another.