"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_wenglund]

History is fun!

BishopRic, I agree with you about the Church and the history. If they didn't dwell on certain aspects then it would seem that fewer would have qualms with them just being a Church. Yet, this Church in particular seems to make it a point to dwell on the early Church history, the founder, the trials of Joseph Smith and those early members, etc... They WANT certain history being repeated and focused on -- well, there's some unsavory history there, as well. Most mainstream Protestants don't talk about the early Church, the persecution of Christians, etc... etc... etc... -- it's 'cause it's not necessary for them to focus on the message of Jesus.

You apparently don't get that the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, is a history of the early Christian Church, and is widely used by "most mainstream Protestants" in focusing on the message of Jesus.

The same is true for we LDS, though we also utilize other scriptural works of history as yet other testaments focusing on the message of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate intent in utilizing history from various sources and on a variety of subjectmatters, is to bring mankind to Christ.

Since that is our intent, it would make sense to utilize those aspects of history that will best affect that end. Our use of history, then, is purpose-driven, and not an end unto itself. As such, it would make sense for us to focus more on the savory parts of history, and not so much on the unsavory parts--your's and Rick's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding.

I hope this helps clear up at least some of your confusion. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Are not all perceptions beneficial to some degree?

Yes, and in their own way.

Even the revilers of Mother Teresa are instructive, though perhaps not in the way they may suppose. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Your point would make sense if: 1) each party perceived the other party's past in the same way (please don't forget that both sides view themselves as the ones "wounded" by the other parties' past and present), 2) each party had the same purpose for looking back at the past and will derive the same value when doing so, and 3) each party were in unanimity with the other in viewing each others' past as the real cause for that which is in need of true healing.

Since none of these conditions are the case, then your point doesn't make sense

You missed the point. "We" can continue feeling that the other's story may be wrong, as far as we are concerned, but the real healing begins when we release the need to make the other be and believe the same way we do. It's not about who's right in their beliefs, or their victimhood. It's about allowing the other to be okay with it, and being able to love them as they are.

(playing Wade here)...I hope that clears up your confusion. (there, was I condescending enough?)

(smiley)

[_Moniker]

History is fun!

BishopRic, I agree with you about the Church and the history. If they didn't dwell on certain aspects then it would seem that fewer would have qualms with them just being a Church. Yet, this Church in particular seems to make it a point to dwell on the early Church history, the founder, the trials of Joseph Smith and those early members, etc... They WANT certain history being repeated and focused on -- well, there's some unsavory history there, as well. Most mainstream Protestants don't talk about the early Church, the persecution of Christians, etc... etc... etc... -- it's 'cause it's not necessary for them to focus on the message of Jesus.

You apparently don't get that the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, is a history of the early Christian Church, and is widely used by "most mainstream Protestants" in focusing on the message of Jesus.

I get that most mainstream Churches don't talk about anything OUTSIDE of the Bible in their lessons. They don't talk about the founders of their particular denomination for the most part, either. :)

The same is true for we LDS, though we also utilize other scriptural works of history as yet other testaments focusing on the message of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate intent in utilizing history from various sources and on a variety of subjectmatters, is to bring mankind to Christ.

My step-son told my daughter that she was an anti-Mormon liar 'cause she asked him about polygamy. She'd seen it on the PBS show.... There's a problem if the people that are IN the Church are not aware of the history. Why? For one they may become disillusioned when they find out that the people they think were lying to them were in fact telling the truth. 2. That they've created an image of the Church with the history of Joseph Smith being persecuted and killed that leaves out the critical aspects of why the early Church had difficulties -- when this collapses some day (which it might) there might be some hurt people in YOUR Church, Wade. Does that not concern you? It concerns me! This board is FULL of people that felt that they were misled. It's one thing to NOT talk about history of the Church, it is something else entirely to push certain portions of Church history that is a far cry from historical accuracy.

Since that is our intent, it would make sense to utilize those aspects of history that will best affect that end. Our use of history, then, is purpose-driven, and not an end unto itself. As such, it would make sense for us to focus more on the savory parts of history, and not so much on the unsavory parts--your's and Rick's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding.

Well, I'm fairly certain if your will (which is counter to people in the Church that do want to get the message out on some of the unsavory aspects of the Church to members through firesides) is done there will continue to be those that leave the Church hurt, bewildered and will make their way to this message board. Enjoy discussing things over with them.

I hope this helps clear up at least some of your confusion. ;-)

There was no confusion on my part. Yet, thanks for the condescencion. Been to Hooters, yet, Wade?

*for those wondering -- Wade told me to discuss the Church was gossipy and stereotypical -- my reply is we ALL choose certain things we want to join or not and can discuss these organizations, restaurants, etc... and decide whether they appeal to us or not.*

[_Sethbag]

Point is, for those that think like Wade that it is best for "relations" to ignore the warts of our past, that it is only in getting past denial that true healing can begin. Apologize for the past wrongs. Apologize to the blacks. Apologize to the gays. Only then can we have true negotions about real improved relations.

Anything less is denial, and without getting past it, no healing is possible.

What exactly does "healing" mean? We find some way of accepting the Church's past, but then go right on still believing it? That's bankrupt. The church isn't true, and the sordid past history bits are precisely examples of evidence that would demonstrate that to people. "Healing" without recognition of this is just finding a way to neutralize the evidence.

I kind of agree with Merc here. Vastly fewer people would take the church seriously if everything was out on the table. The church has hidden this past as effectively as it has (not perfectly, but very effectively overall) because that's what it took to survive and grow as a church. Letting the cat out of the bag would not help the church survive and grow. There's really nothing in it for the church. The church's only reasonable options at the moment are trying to find ways of neutralizing the evidence in peoples' minds. And this will necessarily be less effective than just burying the evidence.

Take Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling. In reality it would be better (for the church) if people just didn't know a lot of the stuff in that book, but barring that, Bushman presents a lot of it in a way that at least some people will be able to deal with in a faith-promoting way. But I bet a non-trivial number of people won't. For some, learning this stuff, even in Bushman's "innoculation" style, will be like a WTF?!? moment, and lead them to further learning which will undermine their testimonies.

I see the value of "constructive dialogue" between TBMs and critics as meaning they're polite to each other and not unnecessarily antagonizing each other. I'm not sure what else there is to be "constructively dialoguing" about. The LDS church is simply not true, and is entirely, 100% manmade. This isn't to say it's 100% evil, because it isn't. It's a reflection of the people who created it. Inasmuch as those people were bad news, the church was bad news in some ways (think racist men making a church with racist policies, or misogynist men making a misogynist church), and inasmuch as these people were good, the church will be good in many ways.

I think the church today is a mixture of both the remnants of what the less virtuous men of the past put into it, with more of what the well-intentioned people of the last couple of generations were able to steer it towards. It's still 100% manmade, however. There is no God in existence, standing at the helm of this church. It's only men. White, American, Utah-born and bred older men.

[_wenglund]

Your point would make sense if: 1) each party perceived the other party's past in the same way (please don't forget that both sides view themselves as the ones "wounded" by the other parties' past and present), 2) each party had the same purpose for looking back at the past and will derive the same value when doing so, and 3) each party were in unanimity with the other in viewing each others' past as the real cause for that which is in need of true healing.

Since none of these conditions are the case, then your point doesn't make sense

You missed the point....

(playing Wade here)...I hope that clears up your confusion. (there, was I condescending enough?)

(smiley)

Perhaps you can clear up my admitted confusion, and help me get your point, by reconciling these two seeming contradictions:

it is only in getting past denial that true healing can begin. Apologize for the past wrongs. Apologize to the blacks. Apologize to the gays. Only then can we have true negotions about real improved relations.

Anything less is denial, and without getting past it, no healing is possible.

And...

"We" can continue feeling that the other's story may be wrong, as far as we are concerned, but the real healing begins when we release the need to make the other be and believe the same way we do. It's not about who's right in their beliefs, or their victimhood. It's about allowing the other to be okay with it, and being able to love them as they are.

Which is it? Does true healing come from LDS getting past what you believe to be "denial", and apologize for things that they don't believe were wrong, though you do (and vice-versa regarding you and other former members getting past what some LDS may believe to be "denial", and apologizing for things you don't believe you did wrong, but they do)?

Or, does true healing come through releasing the need to make LDS believe the same way you do (i.e. release them from believing as you do, that the Church did wrong to blacks and gays and should apologize), and vice-versa (i.e. release you former members from believing, as some members do, that you were wrong to [fill in stereotype here] and need to apologize)?

If the latter, then I get that point. In fact, that has been my point--though I take it one step further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

The same is true for we LDS, though we also utilize other scriptural works of history as yet other testaments focusing on the message of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate intent in utilizing history from various sources and on a variety of subjectmatters, is to bring mankind to Christ.

Since that is our intent, it would make sense to utilize those aspects of history that will best affect that end. Our use of history, then, is purpose-driven, and not an end unto itself. As such, it would make sense for us to focus more on the savory parts of history, and not so much on the unsavory parts--your's and Rick's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding.

I hope this helps clear up at least some of your confusion. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trouble with this, Wade, is that in a strict definitional sense, this is lying. I recall an old thread in which this was proven beyond any reasonable doubt to you, and you really flew off the handle, going ballistic and claiming the dictionary was only useful insofar as one used it in the most "charitable" way possible. You really just need to own up to the fact that the Church hasn't been very honest about its history. Plain and simple.

[_Sethbag]

True healing comes in people recognizing the manmade nature of the church, and overcoming the conditioned tendency toward magical thinking. The church isn't actually true, Wade. "Healing" can begin with recognition and understanding of that fact.

[_wenglund]

I get that most mainstream Churches don't talk about anything OUTSIDE of the Bible in their lessons. They don't talk about the founders of their particular denomination for the most part, either. :)

Then you are ill-informed about mainstream Churches. While many are Biblicists, Christian book stores are filled with books other than the Bible. And, while they may not speak much over the pulpit or in text about the founders of their particular denomination, they do speak much about their local leaders and congregations.

But, so what? Even were they to be quite different from LDS in this respect, it is of little or no matter. For each of our denominations, the ultimate intent what we have to say, regardless of what history or historical text we may or may not appeal to, is to bring people to Christ. It is just that the LDS may choose to meet that objective in somewhat different ways from them.

The same is true for we LDS, though we also utilize other scriptural works of history as yet other testaments focusing on the message of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate intent in utilizing history from various sources and on a variety of subjectmatters, is to bring mankind to Christ.

My step-son told my daughter that she was an anti-Mormon liar 'cause she asked him about polygamy. She'd seen it on the PBS show.... There's a problem if the people that are IN the Church are not aware of the history. Why? For one they may become disillusioned when they find out that the people they think were lying to them were in fact telling the truth. 2. That they've created an image of the Church with the history of Joseph Smith being persecuted and killed that leaves out the critical aspects of why the early Church had difficulties -- when this collapses some day (which it might) there might be some hurt people in YOUR Church, Wade. Does that not concern you? It concerns me! This board is FULL of people that felt that they were misled. It's one thing to NOT talk about history of the Church, it is something else entirely to push certain portions of Church history that is a far cry from historical accuracy.

I am not in a position to speak to the drama unfolding in your family or the supposed hurt of some here on this board, except to say that it all is born of misunderstanding the purpose of history within the Church. The purpose of the Church is not to teach and write history. It is a religion, not a historical society or school on historigraphy. Within the Church, history is merely one of many means to the aforementioned end, and not an end, itself. And, contrary to what you suggest, people in the Church are made aware, accurately (not to be confused with exhaustively), of those aspects of history which best help in ultimately leading them to Christ (which, to me, does not include lengthy discussion about the century distant practice of polygamy or the highly debated historical theories about why the early Church may have had difficulties).

Since that is our intent, it would make sense to utilize those aspects of history that will best affect that end. Our use of history, then, is purpose-driven, and not an end unto itself. As such, it would make sense for us to focus more on the savory parts of history, and not so much on the unsavory parts--your's and Rick's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding.

Well, I'm fairly certain if your will (which is counter to people in the Church that do want to get the message out on some of the unsavory aspects of the Church to members through firesides) is done there will continue to be those that leave the Church hurt, bewildered and will make their way to this message board. Enjoy discussing things over with them.

The poet John Lydgate once said: "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

Unfortunately, no matter how well intended, nor how caring, loving, and thoughtful the Church is in meeting its three-fold mission in Christ, there well always be those whose feelings will get hurt, and who may find themselves blaming and judging the Church on boards such as this. At least they will have good people like you to discuss things with--that is, until you may inadvertantly hurt their feelings as well.

I hope this helps clear up at least some of your confusion. ;-)

There was no confusion on my part. Yet, thanks for the condescencion.

I disagree on both accounts. No surprise there. ;-)

Been to Hooters, yet, Wade?

*for those wondering -- Wade told me to discuss the Church was gossipy and stereotypical -- my reply is we ALL choose certain things we want to join or not and can discuss these organizations, restaurants, etc... and decide whether they appeal to us or not.*

I've not been to Hooters.

Why haven't I gone there, you may ask?

Well...I don't eat out much, and when I do, and when the choice of where to eat is mine (often I let the women I am with chose a place of their liking), it is typically at places where I can get the most food for my buck (all-you-can-eat places like Chuck-O-Rama).

See, I was able to answer your question honestly and adequately without gossiping or stereotyping Hooters, or even intimating anything bad about that restraunt chain. I do appreciate you providing me with this object lesson, though I am sorry if it went the opposite direction from what you may have hoped. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

True healing comes in people recognizing the manmade nature of the church, and overcoming the conditioned tendency toward magical thinking. The church isn't actually true, Wade. "Healing" can begin with recognition and understanding of that fact.

That is certain one man's subjective opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), with which I respectfully disagree (doing so by resisting the temptation to return insults about my thinking with insults about his thinking).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-