AnonPoster wrote:Can anyone here think of the pro's and con's of disclosing/not disclosing true church history, especially to new converts and investigators? Why even have faith promoting history when the real stuff is available?
I want to address the issue of Faith Promoting History. I am writing in favor of it.
Let's take the sterling example of Brigham Young's last words, "Joseph, Joseph, Joseph". These words promote a very positive story, but what if that other piece of alleged wording took its place with Brigham Young uttering the sentence, "Come here my little Rosebud".
Such a less faith promoting substitution in Church history would have far fetching results that would not be positive. Who would benefit knowing this sentence caused startled Zina to utter a small gasp, resulted in Mary Ann throwing the final bed pan on the floor and elicited a hearty belly laugh from Amelia upon hearing of this incident.
There would have been aftershocks. J. Reuben Clark would have been forced to sue Orson Wells, William Randolf Hearst and Marion Davies for brand infringement. Hugh Nibley would generate hundred of footnotes for his pamphlet in answer to Fawn Brodie, "No Ma'am, Brigham Young knew the Old Anglo-Saxon Word and Rosebud Isn't It". The bulk of these footnotes by necessity would be recorded in either Adamic or Reformed Egyptian. Finally, there would be Professor William Hamblin's famous acrostic, "Metcalfe is Budhead".
From this telling, it should be readily apparent that sometimes faith promoting history is for the best.
.