DiscussMormonism.com

From the objective newspaper in Zion:
Mormons tackling tough questions in their history

There is a “discrepancy between a church history that has been selectively rendered through the Church Education System and Sunday school manuals, and a less-flattering version universally accessible on the Internet,” Givens wrote in an email from Virginia.

“The problem is not so much the discovery of particular details that are deal breakers for the faithful; the problem is a loss of faith and trust in an institution that was less that forthcoming to begin with.”

Finally they are getting it!

The article continues

LDS scholar Richard Bushman, author of the critically acclaimed biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, has become a kind of historical therapist, he wrote in an email from his home in New York, “counseling with distraught wives and parents or disaffected Mormons themselves.”

For those who discover unwelcome information about the church’s history online, Bushman said, “the whole picture changes in a flash — like those optical illusions that show a beautiful woman and a hag.”

WOW can someone pass this on to Dan and Juliann's posse on yonder board?

The best way to prevent this from happening, Bushman said, is to give Mormons “the whole story from the beginning. If the disruptive facts are worked into the history Latter-day Saints learn as they grow up, they won’t be turned upside down when they come across something negative.”

No crap Sherlock!

Givens has a new idea for object lessons using stones and hats in primary!

Indeed, said Givens, “if you tell a 12-year-old child that Joseph Smith used a ‘peep stone’ in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, he’ll think that’s cool or interesting.”

Or the child might say ARE YOU F'n KIDDING ME??? And if he does, is it ok for him to stop attending?

But when Latter-Day Saints find out about that on the Internet at age 50, he said, they’ll ask, “Why didn’t the church tell me?”

By then, Givens said, you may have lost them.

So finally we have a mo'pologist accepting that a desire to sin is not the reason that a person leaves the Mormon church.

I wonder if Dan and his lapdogs will shun Givens now?

What about 50-year-old investigators? Are they to get the full story too?

Wow, over 1,700 comments.
Any of you living in UT, are these type of articles getting any attention from chapel Mormons? Or just critics and internet Mormons?

I have to give a lot of credit to Givens and Bushman. These guys represent a 180 difference in approach to the problems of LDS history. Whereas the Mopologists make endless excuses about how there "isn't enough time" or the "venue is inappropriate" to teach controversial history at church, both Givens and Bushman recognize that this is a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with. And you don't see them blaiming the victim, which is de rigueur for the Mopologists, who have always been more concerned with attacking and doing strange backflips to ensure that no one can say that the Church has hidden or omitted or whitewashed or obscured its history. Whereas Givens will acknowledge that someone encountering troubling history may very well feel "betrayed," the Mopologists will accuse the person of being weak, too stupid to look into it, and so on.

In response to your question, PP: no, I don't think that the Mopologists will shun Givens, because I think he has way too much prestige and power. Givens *should* shun them, but he probably won't for reasons of etiquette and decency.

are these type of articles getting any attention from chapel Mormons?

"Chapel Mormons" are aware of the issues raised by anti Mormons. John Dehlin types are too few and easily identified and cut out of the loop. Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the swamp reactivating prospective elders and ordaining them.

bcspace wrote:

are these type of articles getting any attention from chapel Mormons?

"Chapel Mormons" are aware of the issues raised by anti Mormons. John Dehlin types are too few and easily identified and cut out of the loop. Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the swamp reactivating prospective elders and ordaining them.

OIC and your opinions are more respected than Terryl Givens who calls this issue “an epidemic”?

bcspace wrote:
"Chapel Mormons" are aware of the issues raised by anti Mormons.

Only in the fantasy ward you must attend every week. Just had a long talk with my parents last week. Dad is a two time bishop, stake presidency etc. Neither my mom or dad had heard of any of these issues with the exception of very vague details about Joseph's polygamy. He must not have been bishop in your make believe ward.

Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the swamp reactivating prospective elders and ordaining them.

OMG, this literally made me LOL. Not one of those fake computer-speak LOLs, but a real, honest-to-goodness L.O.L. Funniest thing you've ever said, bc. If you had a successful program for reactivating "prospective Elders" and getting them back to church and ordained, Monson would make you an apostle, because the Big 15 have admitted they are damned clueless on how to get it done. But I guess you expect us all to believe you know more than, say, Dallin Oaks, on the subject. The delusional arrogance of the mopologist simply knows no bounds. Wow.

Willy Law wrote:

bcspace wrote:
"Chapel Mormons" are aware of the issues raised by anti Mormons.

Only in the fantasy ward you must attend every week. Just had a long talk with my parents last week. Dad is a two time bishop, stake presidency etc. Neither my mom or dad had heard of any of these issues with the exception of very vague details about Joseph's polygamy.

To say that Chapel Mormons are "aware of these issues" is ridiculous.

My father serves as the Stake Patriarch, has been SP, and served as Bishop twice and he does not know about any of these. I have tried to approach him about a few of them and I can tell he has no idea what I'm talking about. He still believes that Joseph Smith only had one wife (Emma) as taught in the Relief Society manual the year we studied Joseph Smith. He is so obedient and only reads church approved materials and the scriptures.

It's difficult for me to understand why apologists keep stating that every member should already know these things and that the church has not tried to conceal any of its history....attempting to put the blame on the members as if they are stupid or naïve.

The church hides its history....plain and simple. Why is there even a debate regarding this?

Madison54 wrote:The church hides its history....plain and simple. Why is there even a debate regarding this?

It is not a debate. It is called posturing. It is an attempt to move the blame from the organization to the individual.