A Warts And All History?

[_Casslanpepci]

Do you think it is now the time for the LDS Church to officially publish a "warts and all" History and Teachings of the Church? Personally I think, now we are in the 21st century that this should be the case. All the contraversy would be out in the open in an official capacity.

History should contain both the good and the bad so that a correct overall picture is available. After all, in secular history both good and bad points are recorded for all to learn about. In this day and age of the internet just having only faith promoting history is defeatest. The internet has opened up the past like never before. A complete official History and Teachings of the Church covering everything from the time of Joseph Smith to the present day, both controversial and non-controversial should be seriously considered, as it is not the faith promoting history [and/or teachings] that can cause people to leave, but the controversial.

Comments?

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you think it is now the time for the LDS Church to officially publish a "warts and all" History and Teachings of the Church?

It's never not been time for the LDS Church to officially publish a "warts and all" History and Teachings of the Church.

Personally I think, now we are in the 21st century that this should be the case. All the contraversy would be out in the open in an official capacity.

Controversy being out in the open is precisely what the church doesn't want.

History should contain both the good and the bad so that a correct overall picture is available.

Not according to the church's heirarchy. See Boyd K. Packer's talk titled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," wherein he declares, among other things, that "some things that are true are not very useful."

After all, in secular history both good and bad points are recorded for all to learn about.

The church isn't in the business of publishing secular history.

In this day and age of the internet just having only faith promoting history is defeatest.

Then the church is willing to be defeatist.

The internet has opened up the past like never before. A complete official History and Teachings of the Church covering everything from the time of Joseph Smith to the present day, both controversial and non-controversial should be seriously considered, as it is not the faith promoting history [and/or teachings] that can cause people to leave, but the controversial.

If the controversial is what causes people to leave, then why on earth would the church want to publish the controversial??

[_harmony]

First, the church isn't the in business of publishing our history at all. The latest examples of what our leaders regard as history is the Relief Society/Priesthood manuals about the presidents of the church. Anything less historical would be hard to find.

Second, the church is led by old men who are not going to change at this late date. We'll need a completely different set of leaders at the top, if we're ever going to have more openness about anything.

Third, our leaders are not concerned about those that leave. They figuretively dust their feet at every member who submits a letter of resignation and condemn them to an eternity of shunning. It's just one more manifestation of how they don't care about the members at all. What they care about is that tithing continue to flow at an unabated rate. The corporate structure, the financials, the teaching manuals, the way they treat women and gays... all of it would look totally different if they cared about the members.

[_TAK]

Your suggestion is tantamount to asking Ford or Chevy to publish all the problems with their vehicles and the cover ups in the past over the Pinto or the Corvair.

Equally, although much more profitable the Church is also a business designed to attract customers. They offer a feel good service and they are not going do anything that would disrupt that.

[_JoetheClerk]

"Not according to the church's heirarchy. See Boyd K. Packer's talk titled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," wherein he declares, among other things, that "some things that are true are not very useful."

Packer has it right. "Some things that are true are not very useful."

Does not make it right to suppress them though. Truth is Truth and is open to interpretation. In a Church that teaches(or used to teach) that 'all truth is part of the Gospel' censoring any truth is wrong. You do what Joseph Smith said: "Teach them correct principals(Truth)". Then you let people decide for themselves. Doing anything else is what repressive leadership has done all through history.

[_DarkHelmet]

If they were god's one and only true church on earth, they would have no problem allowing the world to see their warts and flaws. After all, humble servants of god make mistakes, and will freely admit their shortcomings. But the LDS church is a corporation, and their profits depend on them maintaining a certain image. The pride of the leadership will not allow the public image of the church and its history to be anything less than miraculous, divine, and led by God, who is perfect.

[_marg]

If they were god's one and only true church on earth, they would have no problem allowing the world to see their warts and flaws.

Excellent point.

If they are going to admit truth at what point do they stop...at the point that Rigdon used Spalding's manuscript to write the Book of Mormon and then later acquired J. Smith's help to present and market it?

[_harmony]

If they were god's one and only true church on earth, they would have no problem allowing the world to see their warts and flaws. After all, humble servants of god make mistakes, and will freely admit their shortcomings. But the LDS church is a corporation, and their profits depend on them maintaining a certain image. The pride of the leadership will not allow the public image of the church and its history to be anything less than miraculous, divine, and led by God, who is perfect.

If we were God's one and only true church, there would be no warts and flaws. And the history would look a whole lot different than it does.

[_Trevor]

Do you think it is now the time for the LDS Church to officially publish a "warts and all" History and Teachings of the Church?

Not gonna happen.

[_Mary]

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?

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.

I remember reading some of Arrington's works back in the 80's that dealt a little more with the warts and all...

Was Van Wagoner excommunicated for his views on Mormon Polygamy, I purchased this book at an LDS History Symposium (ie at church).

Don't the apologists today deal with a 'warts and all' history? Fair is full of articles that deal with controversial subjects?

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