Aren't there a few books 'sanctioned' by the General Authorities that do give a more rounded picture of the church or at least some of the more significant characters that work within it?
Perhaps unofficially. The Joseph Smith papers that are being worked on now may be a more official sanction but I am not sure how open these will be. I have not yet read
I havn't read 'Rough Stone Rolling' yet, by Bushman, but isn't that a book that gives a more colourful view of Joseph's life, yet presented in a faith promoting manner
Yes.
Was Van Wagoner excommunicated for his views on Mormon Polygamy, I purchased this book at an LDS History Symposium (ie at church).
I don't think so.
Don't the apologists today deal with a 'warts and all' history? Fair is full of articles that deal with controversial subjects?
Yes in a defensive way. But involvement in apologetics is what led me to a more in depth study if the difficult issues.
Miss Taken wrote:I would have thought that it's all there now anyway, for people that are interested in finding it. I just don't see the church ramming it in people's faces. I wouldn't have wanted it rammed in mine. They have to be wise about this, and I would have thought that they are taking the wisest and gentlest course. It's a tricky one for them.
Mary
As long as the church maintains manuals that don't give accurate historical accounts (like the poorly conceived whitewash of Brigham Young), critics will accurately portray the church as deceiving the members. Warts and all means Warts like Joseph going behind Emma's back and marrying other women are included in SS manuals. That's not happening, and I don't foresee than changing in the near future.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
As long as the church maintains manuals that don't give accurate historical accounts (like the poorly conceived whitewash of Brigham Young), critics will accurately portray the church as deceiving the members. Warts and all means Warts like Joseph going behind Emma's back and marrying other women are included in SS manuals. That's not happening, and I don't foresee than changing in the near future.
Yeah. I know. You are right in that sense. Somehow though they have to prepare people for this stuff. The apologists' are examples of people who know it and still maintain faith, so it can be done. I would have thought that for converts nowadays, they need to prepare them for this knowledge somehow.
For life-long members, maybe there's a certain group that have always kind of known a warts and all history, particularly if their families originated with some of the more prominent members and polygamists, ie through diaries and personal writings. That still leaves a large group of life long or long term members who feel secure in a testimony, and don't see the need to know this stuff. Sigh... I don't know....
I don't bear the church any ill will. I figure nowadays that all religion is a bit of a pious fraud.
I've yet to figure it all out...
Mary
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Miss Taken wrote: I figure nowadays that all religion is a bit of a pious fraud.
Mary
That would still not preclude these religions from having worth to their adherents. It is even more meaningful when they are fully informed, so that their religious choice is freely given despite of the warts.
Miss Taken wrote: I figure nowadays that all religion is a bit of a pious fraud.
Mary
That would still not preclude these religions from having worth to their adherents. It is even more meaningful when they are fully informed, so that their religious choice is freely given despite of the warts.
Absolutely. And I mean 'pious fraud' in a respectful way in terms of the positive influence that religion can have in a person's life.
When you say 'fully informed' what exactly are you pointing to?
I'm not sure the resurrection occurred in quite the way the New Testament indicates in terms of early christianity, yet how do I become fully informed of the facts and history, when the facts and history are buried beneath 2000 years of belief, faith and tradition, and might not exist anyway.
It may be easier to be better informed as to early LDS history, but what do you feel constitutes a state of being 'fully informed'?
What must people know? (I'm not asking because I have an answer by the way..)
Mary
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
When you say 'fully informed' what exactly are you pointing to?
Mary
I was referring to LDS history. For instance, leaving out mention of past polygamy in the Priesthood manuals about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Polygamy helped shape their lives and their teachings. Its omission does not provide a full understanding of their lives and times. I suspect its omission was borne out some embarrassment on the part of the editors.
It would also include substituting known facts in place of known to be untrue faith promoting legends. Honesty is critical in making for the best possible faith experience. It is better to believe in a fully recognized ideal fantasy than to believe in a dishonest story line. At least that is my opinion.
As far as information on claims that that have been lost in the antiquity of time, there is not much we can do other than embracing what is available or not embracing it.
When you say 'fully informed' what exactly are you pointing to?
Mary
I was referring to LDS history. For instance, leaving out mention of past polygamy in the Priesthood manuals about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Polygamy helped shape their lives and their teachings. Its omission does not provide a full understanding of their lives and times. I suspect its omission was borne out some embarrassment on the part of the editors.
It would also include substituting known facts in place of known to be untrue faith promoting legends. Honesty is critical in making for the best possible faith experience. It is better to believe in a fully recognized ideal fantasy than to believe in a dishonest story line. At least that is my opinion.
As far as information on claims that that have been lost in the antiquity of time, there is not much we can do other than embracing what is available or not embracing it.
See, for me, the fact that past members practiced polygamy is not a problem. It wouldn't affect my faith. Having it as a law of heaven is another matter. It was one of those things I always shelved and didn't really want to think about.
I would have thought that somehow the church needs to stop teaching Joseph Smith as a 'saint'. He was a very imperfect individual. I think the church needs to prepare people for the information that is out there on him, much of it supported in multiple sources.
Mary
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
