Jason Bourne wrote: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.
I am sorry but I think the argument that there is not enough time to teach LDS history is SS classes or seminary or institute is really somewhat of a cop out.
But, I haven't made that argument. In fact, I fully acknowledge that there is rightly a place for LDS history being taught in LDS classes.
Rather, my argument is that there is not sufficient time to provide an EXHAUSTIVE history of the LDS Church, nor would it make sense to provide such. Given the mission of the Church, and given the various means for accomplishing that mission (only one of which is teaching select aspects of Church history), and given the limits of class time, then pragmatism and prudence dictate that whatever portion of the lesson material that is historical in nature, be pertinent to attaining the mission of the Church. that's all.
What I am suggesting is not radical or untowards or specious, but fundamental to the widely accepted (secular and religious) conventions of
effective instructional design.
The Church finds time to teach whatever is wants to emphasize. And the fact that you believe the some of these topics coudl distract from what you view is the mission of the Church really bolsters the idea that there are issues that will serve to not foster faith and may do the opposite.
Correct. And, it makes perfect sense for the Church to do so.
Clearly this is why the Church choses to leave them out and let people find them as they may. Thus they should not be surprised when some rightfully are hurt and angry about this and feel they may have been treated unfairly.
I don't know that the Church has been suprised. I suspect that they understand quite well that, given the broad range of mental and emotional temperments and maturity within the Church, and the human vulnerability to misunderstandings, that dysfunctional emotional reactions are bound to occur regardless of how well intended and appropriately designed the courseware. Again, as the poet John Lydgate wisely noted: "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."
I so not know that it makes sense in the arena of what is the right thing to so. It seems an organization that expect total devotion in lifestyle, money and time would want to be open and upfront about all the things that its members might want to know about before making such a HUGE commitment. If there are things that may persuade some to choose otherwise I think in the long run all would be better off.
Even were it possible to determine that if the Church were to disclose such-and-such about Church history, that no investigator or member would ever feel hurt, angered, or unfairly treated by the Church, then I don't know that it would even then be practical or prudent to make such disclosures. Given the myriad of permutations of what the millions of members and investigators, at varied times throughout their life and with their varied experiences with and within the Church, may think they need to know in order not to be hurt or angered or feel unfairly treated, the Church could conceivably spend all of its time (far more than the hour or two each Sunday) and still not completely satisfy that end. It is just not practical. At some point, pragmatism demands at least some measure of selectivity as to what should be taught historically. And, given that the mission of the Church isn't to be completely politically correct and avoid any chance of hurt, anger, or feel unfairly treated, but rather to bring the willing in heart to Christ, then prudence and reason dictates an even greater measure of selectivity.
More to the point, as already intimated, it is not possible to determine what all would need to be disclosed to prevent any hurt, anger, or feelings of unfair treatment. As humans, at least some people are bound to be hurt and so forth no matter what may be done. What you are suggesting, then, is an unreachable standard--no matter how right you may think it is.
Besides, the Church, and the gospel of Christ upon which it is based, is not a one-sided proposition where the Church bears the entire burden for education, or even where the only commitment is of members to the Church. Ours is a covenant relationship, which means that both parties share the burden of education, and both parties are committed to each other and to self. What you state above entirely misses this very critical factor.
Why is it whenever "aspects" of what is important about Church history the apologists brings up nonsensical issues like this? Of course what Joseph had for dinner of March 18, 1822 is not important to his truth claims. What is important are events and happenings that reflect on his character and whether we can trust him. The Church emphasizes ONLY the positive things. That is what they see as critical Anything that could be negative is left out Thus people, unless they dig on their own, are left with a picture of Joseph and early Church history that does not reflect reality. Then they are told to pray about this character that really is not the way it was. This in order to decide truth and base their whole life on. But The Church certainly is not going to volunteer things that are not positive.
I can't speak for other apologists, but the reason I brought up the so-called "nonsense" is because apparently you and others lack the capacity to grasp our point in relation to disputed areas of historical disclosure, and so to better facilitate your cognition, we point out the areas of little dispute--with the hope that once you get that it is nonsense to think that every "aspect" of Church history need be taught (dinner of March 18th for example), then you may be better disposed to understanding that it may not be sensible to teach other aspects of history (presumably some of the aspects you may personally think should be taught).
It is also quite niave for you to suppose that only positive, and not negative, aspects of Church history are being taught. You need to read the D&C a little more carefully, and you may find an abundance of chastisements from the Lord for negative things done by Church members--including Joseph Smith. The point isn't so much selectivity based on positive or negative history, but whether the historical disclosures tend to advance the mission of the Church. Clearly, there are negative as well as positive aspects of Church history that lend themselves to that end.
I am not sure what the answer is but it really seems that fully disclosing things is the right thing to do.
Given our agreement that it is nonsense to think that all aspects of Church history should be taught, then the problem come in finding agreement on what constitutes "full disclosure". Those aspects of Church history that you, in good faith and for reasons of your own, may think should be fully disclosed, are likely not what the leaders of the Church may, in good faith and for reasons of their own, may think practical and reasonable to be fully disclosed. And, that is okay. Reasonable people can reasonably and respectfully disagree. Each has their own opinion as to the "right thing to do" as based on their respective objectives. You believe that the right thing to do is disclose certain select aspect of Church history of your choosing so as to prevent any chance of peoples feelings being hurt or angered; and the Church believes the right thing to do is disclose select aspects of Church history of their choosing so as to satisfy the mission of the Church. To each their own.
I can respect opinions but if someone does the wrong thing do they deserve respect? Would you respect someone who sold you a home if you later found out that it had a cracked foundation? Would you not feel a bit cheated? Would you have bought the home had you known? Or asked for a lower price? If the seller had the attitude of "My mission is to sell this house and I will only tell what things I need to to get it sold" would you not be angry and feel cheated? Would you respect them? Or would you sue them?
I think I know the answer.
With as one-sided, distorted, and distrusting as apparently is your point of view of the issue, it is understandable that you would not respect the Church's opinion. And, given your evident uncharitable sentiments, reasoning tends to be futile. So, I'll conclude by saying it was nice talking to you.
So why the different set of standards for the LDS Church?
Actually, I am fine with applying the standard both ways, and I have even done so by respecting your opinion even though I disagree with it. You, on the other hand, seem reluctant to do the same in return, and as such, and ironically, the set of double standards you mentioned, is your own. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-