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

[_wenglund]

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.

Actually, with tongue in cheek, I simply called you a liar for doing the very thing you falsely accused the Church of doing. But, I've moved on from those trite events of several years ago. Perhaps some day you will be able to move on as well. For your sake, I hope so. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The problem that many people have with this, Wade, is that this is dishonest. Of course it is fine to "lead people to Christ." The trouble is that virtually *ALL* of the problematic facets of history along the way are glossed over or whitewashed to a very problematic extent. To use the old, careworn analogy of the car dealership: Suppose that you believe passionately that every man and woman in American should own a car. Ownership of a car, you believe, brings people closer to true happiness. So, in the course of trying to "bring people closer" to cars, you focus only on the positives. For example, you don't bother to mention that one car spews thick gouts of white smoke out its exhaust pipe, or that there's a nasty bloodstain in the trunk of another car. Are these omitted details irrelevant? Would the new owner of one of these cars be justified in feeling angry? Or should they simply overlook past history, since your main purpose was to promote your belief that every car owner will be happier owning a car?

[_Jason Bourne]

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).

The LDS Church brings people to Christ based squarely on whether the claims of its founding prophet are true. The history surrounding the founding prophet seems important in determining if his claims are true. The Church certianly recognizes this as it promotes and fosters history that compliment Joseph. The story about his physical challange as a young boy, the struggles he went through to know what Church to join, the persecution that ensued the 14 year old when he shared the story of his vision, the attempts to steal the plates from Joseph and his visits with Moroni, the trek to Ohio and all the visions that happened there, the Kirtland Temple pentecostal experience, the savage persecution in Missouri and Illinois, the Martyrdom and so on.

The Church uses its history over and over to teach about its founding. I am sorry Wade but it seems specious to claim that the Church's job is not to teach and write history when it uses history to its advantage and to convince people Joseph was indeed Christ's messenger and thus the LDS Church is true.

So if the Church uses history to promote faith then why does it seem to avoid the things that may discourage faith. Simple because they can and do casue people perhaps to decide maybe Joseph's claims are not what they appear.

So because there are historical issues that will not promote faith the Church will not go out of its way to let people know about them and the member and investigator must search on their own. The problem is for members that are brought up in the Church teaching system will make make commitment and life decisions that may not have made had they had a more full picture. I am not sure this in entirely fair or right.

[_Dale]

Are Evangelicals taught Martin Luther was an Anti-Semite? Are they taught he had pro-polygamy ideas? I doubt when they tell the story of the reformation that get get into any such subjects. Are they taught evolution, or creationism? Are they told DNA studies prove man pre-dated Adam and Eve by millions of years?

[_Sethbag]

The LDS Church brings people to Christ based squarely on whether the claims of its founding prophet are true. The history surrounding the founding prophet seems important in determining if his claims are true.

The leaders don't see it this way. This is where the magical thinking kicks in. You see, the history surrounding the prophet is irrelevent in terms of being able to trust that the founding claims are true or credible. The only thing that matters, according to TBMs and leaders, is "The Spirit" telling you that the founding claims are true. That's it, and the evidence be damned.

[_Sethbag]

Are Evangelicals taught Martin Luther was an Anti-Semite? Are they taught he had pro-polygamy ideas? I doubt when they tell the story of the reformation that get get into any such subjects. Are they taught evolution, or creationism? Are they told DNA studies prove man pre-dated Adam and Eve by millions of years?

No, and probably a very good reason for that is that these are some good evidence that the Lutheran church and its descendants aren't actually true either. The LDS church isn't the only one that conceals the evidence of its manmade nature. That the Lutherans don't talk about Luther's problems doesn't help the LDS church though.

[_Moniker]

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.

I bet I'm better informed about mainstream Churches than you are, Wade. How many Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist, Churches have you attended in the last 25 years?

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.

Most mainstream Churches do NOT preach on their pulpits about the FOUNDER of the denomination -- the early history of the DENOMINATION or anything similar to what the LDS does. They don't do re-enactments of early denomination history, they don't go on pilgrimages to early denomination history sites, etc... etc... They focus on Jesus! (by the way, in case anyone is wondering -- I lump the mainstream right along side the LDS as being ahem interesting belief wise:)

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.

So, what? You replied to my post to BishopRic -- evidently you wanted to correct me on some point. Still waiting for that to happen. Perhaps YOU were the one confused? The POINT is that the LDS CHURCH emphasizes the HISTORY OF THE CHURCH! So, if they want to emphasize the history of the Church they shouldn't gasp in horror when others point out the REST OF THE HISTORY!!!!

Is that simple enough?

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

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

Well, please tell me what I was confused about? That mainstream Churches do not emphasize their early history, that LDS do so, that LDS history is not known by some members, etc.. what precisely was I confused about, Wade?

]Been to Hooters, yet, Wade?

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. ;-)

I was hoping for nothing other than you to understand that we can all discuss organizations and decide whether they appeal to us or not. Recall me mentioning Cracker Barrel discriminating against black servers? Same chain of thought there, Wade.... So, if I can discuss an organization, their actions, and make decisions on whether they appeal to me or not (may want to boycott, write letters of protest), that doesn't make one a gossip. Yet, of course that was probably too much in reality and not enough leafy green analogy for you.

[_Moniker]

Are Evangelicals taught Martin Luther was an Anti-Semite? Are they taught he had pro-polygamy ideas? I doubt when they tell the story of the reformation that get get into any such subjects. Are they taught evolution, or creationism? Are they told DNA studies prove man pre-dated Adam and Eve by millions of years?

Precisely! That would be a problem, eh? :)

Of course I've never been to a mainstream Church where Martin Luther EVER came up!!! I'm sure there are some... if they DID they should expect some historians to SCOFF. They should expect some people to point their attention to THE REST OF THE STORY. :)

by the way, there are mainstream Churches that read the Bible metaphorically and don't believe in the actual Adam and Eve myth.

[_Moniker]

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.

Ha, I missed this part. I snipped too quickly.

Wade, I came to these boards to help my family and specifically my step-son and his father have a better relationship. I enjoy a lot of these people that are both practicing LDS and ex-Mos. I'm not trying to steer anyone to a faith, or a lifestyle, or to anything AT ALL. That is the Church's mission, no? So, if I hurt someone's feelings they can probably wake up tomorrow and not feel as though they've had their world heaved upside down, question their entire life, question what once made sense to them as it turns into doubt, feel they were misled, etc... etc... I'm pretty sure the person that I offended could just tell me what was up and I could retort back -- or we could make up. No biggie. Leaving the Church is a biggie, Wade. I'm fairly certain you do recognize that -- or else you wouldn't be on here.

[_wenglund]

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).

The LDS Church brings people to Christ based squarely on whether the claims of its founding prophet are true. The history surrounding the founding prophet seems important in determining if his claims are true. The Church certianly recognizes this as it promotes and fosters history that compliment Joseph. The story about his physical challange as a young boy, the struggles he went through to know what Church to join, the persecution that ensued the 14 year old when he shared the story of his vision, the attempts to steal the plates from Joseph and his visits with Moroni, the trek to Ohio and all the visions that happened there, the Kirtland Temple pentecostal experience, the savage persecution in Missouri and Illinois, the Martyrdom and so on.

The Church uses its history over and over to teach about its founding. I am sorry Wade but it seems specious to claim that the Church's job is not to teach and write history when it uses history to its advantage and to convince people Joseph was indeed Christ's messenger and thus the LDS Church is true.

So if the Church uses history to promote faith then why does it seem to avoid the things that may discourage faith. Simple because they can and do casue people perhaps to decide maybe Joseph's claims are not what they appear.

So because there are historical issues that will not promote faith the Church will not go out of its way to let people know about them and the member and investigator must search on their own. The problem is for members that are brought up in the Church teaching system will make make commitment and life decisions that may not have made had they had a more full picture. I am not sure this in entirely fair or right.

Of course the Church uses history. No one is denying that. Rather, I am saying that in terms of the Church, history is a means to an end, and not the end, itself (otherwise, the Church wouldn't be a religion, but a history department or historical society). There is nothing specious in making that reasonable observation.

Given the Church's declared three-fold mission (which, incidently does not mention history as an end or otherwise), history may then be viewed as a means (one of many) to that end.

And, though time and energy and other matters of practicality prevent an exhaustive conveyence of Church history during instructional periods at Church on Sundays (particularly in light of other reasonable priorities), and while you and other good folks may have your own opinions about what aspects of Church history may best be utilized in meeting the stated end (as well as being sufficient for investigators and members to make informed decisions), I hope you can accept and respect that other members (Church leaders and Church curriculum commitees in particular) may have a different view of what aspects of Church history will ultimately bring people to Christ and suffice for making and informed decision. The later is what may be found in the lesson manuals of the Church.

There is nothing specious about acknowledging this, nor are the choices made by Church leaders, in good faith, unreasonable or unfair (any more than it would be unreasonable or unfair to select aspects of Church history according to your opinion, as differing from ours)--it is just different from what you may prefer.

Now, while the Church may reasonably believe it has met its obligation in utilizing Church history as a means to the three-fold mission and adequately informing its members thereto, this does not prevent investigators or members from exploring the history of the Church further, for whatever reason.

There is nothing specious about acknowledging this, and it, too, is a perfectly reasonable process.

In short, again, if people feel themselves hurt upon learning certain aspects of Church history (as they interpret them), it is because either they misunderstand the purpose of history in the Church and have lost sight of the end to which the history is intended, or they have simply come to a different opinion about the Church and its history than has the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-