DiscussMormonism.com

Honest history is important because it helps us learn what our mistakes are and how to correct them. Dishonest history is used to cover sins (see D&C 121) or to indoctrinate someone or achieve some other agenda. Am I stating the obvious?

well some truth aren't very useful according to Boyd K Packer.

Philo Sofee wrote:well some truth aren't very useful according to Boyd K Packer.

And because church leaders from J.S. To BKP chose to keep secrets their honesty is being questioned today. And rightfully so.

deacon blues wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:well some truth aren't very useful according to Boyd K Packer.

And because church leaders from J.S. To Boyd K. Packer chose to keep secrets their honesty is being questioned today. And rightfully so.

Fundamentally so. I completely agree with you. The real damage is that it was the critics who have been telling the truth and getting excommunicated for it while the church has been lying all this time about so much. You just can't recover from that very easily. It's going to take another generation before they get totally brainwashed people back in the church who don't know the history. Ironic isn't it? I mean the history about them coming clean pretending to be transparent.

The problem is when history is told as stories with heroes, villains and conclusions.

Isn't it ironic that a church that depends so much on a fictional book being actual history has done so much to revise, cover up and ignore real history?

Let's examine the Church's new found desire to tell the truth about its history with one simple question:

What did we learn from the essays that hadn't already been revealed by someone other than the Church?

Conclusion? The Church hasn't come clean, it's only 'told' the bare minimum based on what was already 'out there'.

Fence Sitter wrote:Isn't it ironic that a church that depends so much on a fictional book being actual history has done so much to revise, cover up and ignore real history?

Dude!!! that's another sig line! [Edit to add] gotcha in my sig line.....

I have a question wrote:Let's examine the Church's new found desire to tell the truth about its history with one simple question:

What did we learn from the essays that hadn't already been revealed by someone other than the Church?

Conclusion? The Church hasn't come clean, it's only 'told' the bare minimum based on what was already 'out there'.

One sign of humility is having the ability to admit one is wrong. That seems to be lacking throughout the history of the church, even with the essays.

I'll hold the Church to it's own standard:
It's either all true, or a huge fraud.