Symmachus wrote:I agree with former Justice Oaks that no church is required to present a balanced historical narrative. Historians should do that. But I see nothing wrong with mythmaking centered on communal rituals and ethical postures and gestures.
But that's not really the church's problem, is it? Their problem is that they can't stay in their lane. Rather than let historians do their thing, the Church decides to get into the history business by pontificating on the finer points of historiography when it serves their interest (by suppressing documents or attacking scholars, for example), but then they claim a religious exemption when they get push-back.
The church should be honest if it has integrity. Oaks plays games when he tries to sweep the church through with a generalisation.
Philo Sofee wrote:No, there is no obligation for any religion to tell its true and real history. And, there is no obligation for anyone to believe anything they ever say.
I think that through the publication of the Joseph Smith Papers that the church has taken a giant step forward with transparency. But you're right, Philo...people don't have to believe anything they don't want to believe. Especially if they don't think there is sufficient reason to do so.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I mean. Factual, open, honest, and forthcoming are standards I think anyone can expect from an organization that proclaims itself as The One True Church.
- Doc
That wishes to establish it's credibility via transparency.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb