Don't worry about the history

[_DrW]

You're being very general and vague. I don't know what you're talking about. How's about something to consider?

Thanks for your response to my earlier post. I need to get back to work now. I will respond in detail, with examples, later today or tomorrow.

(You can count on it.)

[_just me]

A great deal of the history of the church is actually doctrine. That makes it something worthy of major study and consideration.

Doctrine is important. At least, it is if you stay in a religion for theological reasons.

Polygamy is not only history it is doctrine.
The Book of Abraham is not only doctrine it is alleged history and its advent is part of the church history.
The priesthood ban is not only history it was based on doctrine.

I guess I'd like to see an example of a piece of LDS history that we don't need to worry about because it has never had anything to do with the doctrines or practices of Joseph Smith or the LDS church.

[_Buffalo]

But as Zeez pointed out, history is VERY important to LDS faith. At least certain events, like the first vision, this history of the Nephites, etc. It's not just based on mystical things that can't be nailed to the wall.

Overall I see your point. But I maintain my point stands on an individual level. Individuals base their faith on something quite different than history. And since history is not complete, since history carries assumptions, since history is to some extent theoretical, there is to the faithful mind, no reason to rely on attempted refutations based on historic analysis. Did Joseph Smith have a vision of God and the Son? Well there is plenty of reason to reject that, but those reasons themselves don't prove it didn't happen. It could still have happened, supposing their is a God.

So you're saying that a historical basis, while helpful, is subordinate to mystical experiences?

[_stemelbow]

So you're saying that a historical basis, while helpful, is subordinate to mystical experiences?

In terms of religion and faith, yes. Just look at conservative evagelicals...you'll see much the same on ths front, methinks.

[_stemelbow]

A great deal of the history of the church is actually doctrine. That makes it something worthy of major study and consideration.

Doctrine is important. At least, it is if you stay in a religion for theological reasons.

Polygamy is not only history it is doctrine.

Okay, but people can say polygamy was practiced in the church and now its not. Any faithful person can accept that it was doctrine, if you like, but not practiced now too. It doesn't mean the Church is false, though. To accept this doctrine does not require one to accept all things associated with its historical practice.

The Book of Abraham is not only doctrine it is alleged history and its advent is part of the church history.

but this raises the issue I've bene harping on. There's tons to dispute concering the Book of Abraham. Just because there is tons to dispute, historically, shows that one doesn't need to rely on the historical analysis of it to decide, in terms of faith, if its worth trusting as scripture or not. Indeed, one could easily accept it as scripture and think it came straight from God to Joseph Smith sans any use of the papyri.

The priesthood ban is not only history it was based on doctrine.

To my great shame, you are right. But then again, I can accept that the Church is/was wrong on this point and move on happily seeing the priesthood extended to any deemed ready to receive it.

I guess I'd like to see an example of a piece of LDS history that we don't need to worry about because it has never had anything to do with the doctrines or practices of Joseph Smith or the LDS church.

All examples you gave are great examples, as explained.

[_Buffalo]

So you're saying that a historical basis, while helpful, is subordinate to mystical experiences?

In terms of religion and faith, yes. Just look at conservative evagelicals...you'll see much the same on ths front, methinks.

Yes - that's why I'm an atheist, and not some liberal Christian. The same fallacious methodology is present in any religious group.

[_Buffalo]

but this raises the issue I've bene harping on. There's tons to dispute concering the Book of Abraham. Just because there is tons to dispute, historically, shows that one doesn't need to rely on the historical analysis of it to decide, in terms of faith, if its worth trusting as scripture or not. Indeed, one could easily accept it as scripture and think it came straight from God to Joseph Smith sans any use of the papyri.

The problem with the Book of Abraham goes deeper than the funeral text papyrus. The history itself in the Book of Abraham is a bogus history. For instance, it's claimed that the Canaanites were cursed from the priesthood (and therefore Black). But the Canaanites were Semitic, close cousins of the Jews, and they intermarried a lot. The Jews really came out of the Canaanites.

[_just me]

A great deal of the history of the church is actually doctrine. That makes it something worthy of major study and consideration.

Doctrine is important. At least, it is if you stay in a religion for theological reasons.

Polygamy is not only history it is doctrine.

Okay, but people can say polygamy was practiced in the church and now its not. Any faithful person can accept that it was doctrine, if you like, but not practiced now too. It doesn't mean the Church is false, though. To accept this doctrine does not require one to accept all things associated with its historical practice.

It is still practiced in the church. You just can't have sex with anyone other than your legal wife. There are living men who are sealed to as many as 3 or 4 LIVING women all at the same time. The only difference is that only one wife is a legal wife.
Men can still be sealed to more than one woman. A woman cannot....even after her first husband DIES she has to wait until SHE is dead to be sealed to any subsequent husbands.

D&C 132 is still canon last I checked. It still appears in the scriptures and on the LDS.org website. It has not been removed or refuted in any way. That means we have to test the doctrine. And let me just say it is a FAIL.

Someone does have to accept that the brand of polygamy outlined in D&C 132 is doctrine. Well, it makes it easier to remain a believer anyway. The church has a hard time with Cafeteriaism.

The Book of Abraham is not only doctrine it is alleged history and its advent is part of the church history.

but this raises the issue I've bene harping on. There's tons to dispute concering the Book of Abraham. Just because there is tons to dispute, historically, shows that one doesn't need to rely on the historical analysis of it to decide, in terms of faith, if its worth trusting as scripture or not. Indeed, one could easily accept it as scripture and think it came straight from God to Joseph Smith sans any use of the papyri.

But when it contains information that is false just taking it on faith is not a positive thing. Why would someone want to do that?

The priesthood ban is not only history it was based on doctrine.

To my great shame, you are right. But then again, I can accept that the Church is/was wrong on this point and move on happily seeing the priesthood extended to any deemed ready to receive it.

Do you also believe that the scriptures which were used to backup this doctrine and the practices suprrounding it are wrong? one of them is in the Book of Abraham and is still cited in church manuals as the reason for the priesthood ban. It is still doctrine that dark skin was caused by a curse of god. It is still doctrine that dark skinned people have largely been unworthy of the priesthood and even gospel of Christ.

Obviously some people are able to convince themselves that it isn't really "like that" but it is.


I needed to know if god was really a big fat jerk or not. So, yeah, I had to worry about the history because the doctrine is tangled up in it.

I think that for those who feel good about the doctrines and practices of the church there is a big incentive to just believe and not worry about the little flecks in history. When you get to a point where you realize the doctrines and practices of the church are not helping you become a better person it is time to look at what is what. Luckily, there are so many contradictions, inconsistencies and lies that it makes the process of mentally leaving the doctrines of the church that much easier than if the history was accurate.

The problem is that many of the doctrines and practices of the LDS church (among others) do actual harm to people. If it didn't this wouldn't be an issue. The church teaches things that are damaging. The damaging beliefs often contradict things we have learned through logic and science. Unfortunatly, the church is so fundamentalist that they cannot shuck off doctrines or practices very easily, even when they are false and damaging.

[_Themis]

Sure. Particularly if you are promoting the faith promoting kind as exhaustive. But what's wrong with a little inconsistency when history is not meant to be the primary source of faith building? Often, to the faithful it simply does not matter what historical research can find, because that's not what faith is based on.

Its also inconsistent to demand, or expect, the faithful to learn of the troubling aspects of LDS history and be exceedingly troubled by it when it is well known they don't trust history as the basis for their faith.

Who is demanding, and you are forgetting who you are talking to. You are talking to people who were very faithful for many years to decades, but who do think history and evidence is important.

[_why me]

I think the answer is simple - the only history that's important is the faith-promoting kind. If you drop that attitude, you won't remain a Mormon for long.

Not necessary true. But history is made by men and women and it can be far from perfect because of it. In Mormonism, the rock or foundation to the church is the Book of Mormon. Is it true or isn't true is the important the important question. Other aspects of Mormon history become irrelevant when it comes to the Book of Mormon.

Most history is faith promoting. When children in the USA read their own history it is faith promoting. Why? Because that is the way it is: one must believe their country to be a good country, always wearing the white cowboy hat.