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

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Part of the mission is "Perfecting the Saints." Obviously, failure to provide an accurate picture of Church history is a major obstacle to accomplishing that.

[_wenglund]

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.

Certainly, leaving the Church can be a "biggy" for some people (though not all). But, as you may guess, that is beside my point. I wasn t' speaking to the gravity of leaving for some, but rather the seeming impossibility of no one getting hurt and leaving the Church regardless of whatever good the Church may do.

To take the point one step further, given that the overwhelming majority of Church members and former Church members do not feel a need to weep and wail against the Church on boards such as this, but many may be moved instead by gratitude and appreciation and respect for the Church (even when they may disagree with various Church beliefs and policies), may give some indication where the fault (for those looking to place blame--that would not be me) for the hurt may lay. So, for those inclined to finger-point, that may be a more logical starting point.

As for me, I am not so much interested in looking backwards and using history for purposes of judgementalism, but rather in looking forward to what good there may yetr be, and working towards that end. I can respect, though, if others choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

Part of the mission is "Perfecting the Saints." Obviously, failure to provide an accurate picture of Church history is a major obstacle to accomplishing that.

In a strained sort of way that may be true.

But, I suspect that there is an immense gulf between what you may view as an "accurate picture" of Church history than what the Church in general may view regarding the same. So, around and around we go.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Wade

Would sharing the the details around Joseph's use of a peep stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon or the history related to poyandry thwart the mission of the Church?

Honestly it just seems that the Church wants to use the faith promoting parts of history selectively to convince people Joseph Smith was a prophet. Anything that might persuade differently is left out. And you are wrong. The founding history of the LDS Church is CENTRAL to it claim of truth.

[_beastie]

Wade,

You have not changed one little bit. Your "message" about wanting to "help exmormons heal" is just an way to blind yourself to your real goal - the same goal you've always had. It's the same goal you had when you wanted to "heal" homosexuals or wanted to point out bigotry or logical fallacies. Your goal, whether or not you know it, is it belittle exmormons in any way you can, and to attempt to minimize their assertions.

Anyone who is familiar at all with your posts won't be fooled by your smokescreen, although it's possible you're fooling one person - yourself. Heaven knows it's too risky to admit your own malignant motivations to yourself - why, then you'd have to repent and quit doing it! Heaven forfend!!

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Part of the mission is "Perfecting the Saints." Obviously, failure to provide an accurate picture of Church history is a major obstacle to accomplishing that.

In a strained sort of way that may be true.

But, I suspect that there is an immense gulf between what you may view as an "accurate picture" of Church history than what the Church in general may view regarding the same. So, around and around we go.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why not deal with a specific example then? How would you recommend that the Church present, say, the polygamy-polyandry material? Or Joseph Smith's treasure hunting? Or MMM? Or the history of the Book of Abraham?

[_BishopRic]

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 don't see anything in your post, Seth, that I disagree with. I'm all for total disclosure, and let the chips fall where they may. I think we're seeing a significant momentum shift with regard to membership/activity in the church...the educated are leaving/not joining.

From a different angle, however, there are many that probably will not leave. They are not the ones on these boards, nor are they even interested in talking about the challenges of the history and truth claims of the church. These "chapel Mormons" are family members and good friends of you and me. And I think there is an elephant in the room when we attempt to spend time together. The air is thick with the unspeakable -- that the other is naïve and stupid to believe the way they do.

My interest is to simply allow the conversation to take place. Listen to what the other believes -- to what the other reveres and holds sacred. We BOTH need to be heard by the other to remain "friends." Then revel with the other in what makes them happy, and get past the need to change them. I believe true change comes from within, when/if the "student" is ready. But in the meantime, why not love each other unconditionally?

Last week, my second daughter went to the temple for the first time. She decided to go so she could attend the wedding/sealing of her brother next week. I heard about it from my mother, not her. I wrote her a letter telling her I was happy for her. She knows I don't believe, and she hadn't told me about it trying to avoid any sort of conflict. I told her I hope she will talk to me about all her church issues, and that I will support her in what makes her happy. Yesterday we had a good hug of understanding about this.

Point is, it is in the Mormon nature to "convert" the other. Because of this, it seems to be in our nature to deconvert when we leave. It's natural. But personally for me, I've found more peace in trying to accept them as they are, and hope to facilitate them to accept us as we are -- simply to allow love to continue between the two sides. After all, we're both only human!

[_BishopRic]

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

I see how it could be seen as contradictory. This is why I don't believe it is. I see the church as an organism. It does what is necessary to survive. "It" has chosen to cover up unsavory parts of its past, and in my opinion, to survive and thrive in the future, it needs to become honest and open to its members and others. From a therapeutic standpoint, I believe one helpful step is to apologize for its wrongs. Because of the internet and media, I believe the truth of its past is more available to the public, and to continue its desired growth, it must evolve and do what's right, and that is to come into integrity.

The healing I speak of is between individuals. Many families are split between members and non/ex members. Perhaps neither is fully educated in the history we speak of here daily. They simply think the other is naïve, and/or wrong about their religious beliefs. Whether they are right or wrong, they ARE brothers and sisters of the others. They share many commonalities...hobbies, interests, etc., and I think it is a shame that a little thing called religion splits them apart so much.

As you and I have discussed in the past, I don't think it is necessary, but it involves getting past the silence. Dialogue is necessary. Respect is critical. Viewing the other as equal, as they are, is the step required to get to unconditional love -- the only real "love" there is. I believe it is possible -- without changing the beliefs of the other. I might be a Jazz fan, and you a Laker's fan. Does that mean we can't be friends? Why can't we have different religious beliefs -- even discuss our differences, and still be friends?

Hope this helps.

[_harmony]

From a different angle, however, there are many that probably will not leave. They are not the ones on these boards, nor are they even interested in talking about the challenges of the history and truth claims of the church. These "chapel Mormons" are family members and good friends of you and me. And I think there is an elephant in the room when we attempt to spend time together. The air is thick with the unspeakable -- that the other is naïve and stupid to believe the way they do.

My interest is to simply allow the conversation to take place. Listen to what the other believes -- to what the other reveres and holds sacred. We BOTH need to be heard by the other to remain "friends." Then revel with the other in what makes them happy, and get past the need to change them. I believe true change comes from within, when/if the "student" is ready. But in the meantime, why not love each other unconditionally?

The wisdom in this post is just breathtaking. Amen, Ric. Let us quit trying to "convert" each other and simply have the discussion. Allowing others to make choices we wouldn't ourselves make is part of being an adult.

[_wenglund]

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.

Wade

Would sharing the the details around Joseph's use of a peep stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon or the history related to poyandry thwart the mission of the Church?

As I see it, that depends. If the sharing is done as it is now, in extra-curricular ways (such as through books and articles written by LDS and non-LDS historians), then I don't believe it would thwart the mission of the Church. However, if the sharing is done as a part of Sunday lesson material, then it may thwart (to a nominal degree) the mission of the Church--more as an unecessary and non-productive distraction than anything else. In other words, given the time constraints of Sunday class periods, it would be inprudent to take time away from instruction that is deemed pertinent to satisfying the mission of the Church, and devote it instead to impertinent matters (in my opinion) such as those you mentioned.

Honestly it just seems that the Church wants to use the faith promoting parts of history selectively to convince people Joseph Smith was a prophet, Anything that might persuade differently is left out.

Obviously, that is what the Church is doing. Given the mission of the Church, it makes perfect sense for the Church to be selective in that way. This is precisely my point.

And you are wrong. The founding history of the LDS Church is CENTRAL to it claim of truth.

Certainly, there are aspects of founding history of the Church that are critical (not to be confused with CENTERAL) to its claim of truth. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is which aspects of the founding history are critical to the truth claims. Historical aspects like what kinds of clothes the Smiths wore, whether they ate candy at times, stick-pulling activities, who was the best at harvesting maple, what trees they may have climbed, etc. etc., I don't see as critical. What I (and evidently the leaders of the Church and the Church curriculam designers) view as critical, are found in the lesson material.

Now, you may have a different opinion as to what is critical. And, that is perfectly fine, and I can respect that. We each are entitled to our own opinions. Hopefully, you can respect the opinions of the lesson material decisionmakers, even though it may differ from your own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-