New four-volume history of the Church will be 'transparent, honest and faithful'
“It is a narrative history written in an engaging style that will be accessible to both youth and adults,” he remarked.
“Saints, however, is not historical fiction. It is a true story based on the records of people from the past. Every detail and every line of dialogue is supported by historical sources.”
Volume 1 — available later this year — tells the story of the Restoration from Joseph Smith’s childhood to the Saints receiving ordinances in the Nauvoo Temple in 1846.
Volume 2 covers the Saints’ challenges in gathering to the western United States and finishes with the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple.
Volume 3 recounts the Church’s global growth, ending with the dedication of the Bern Switzerland Temple in 1955.
Volume 4 brings the narrative up to the recent past in which temples dot the earth.
It will be interesting to see what they omit...
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
My guess: Multiple first vision accounts. Polyandry. Joseph Smith translation plagarism. Book of Abraham translation being wrong. All previous first presidency statements on the priesthood ban being a revelation from God.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
New four-volume history of the Church will be 'transparent, honest and faithful’.
Implying what? That all heretofore historical publications were not any of those things? Seems rather dubious for an organization that claims to be the one true Church on all the earth.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
How would this work be different if it was only honest and transparent?
In other words, the very fact that the word "faithful" was part of the description tells you they are ommiting unfaithful parts.
They should've just called it for what it is, hagiography.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
How would this work be different if it was only honest and transparent?
In other words, the very fact that the word "faithful" was part of the description tells you they are ommiting unfaithful parts.
They should've just called it for what it is, hagiography.
It struck me as being dishonest. The church always reports things in a manner that put's the church in the best possible light and assists the testimony by remaining faithful to the information given.
How on earth can the church present anything faithful about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and Joseph Smith's declaration and presentation of those things? These are some serious warts in Mormonism and yet the church just covers them up and tells the faithful to not worry about those little things but to look at the whole picture. Well, the whole picture is one giant image of corruption. The Mormon church is totally corrupt from the foundation to the top -- full of rotten garbage.
The stink that comes out of Mormonism is enough to make any honest person to want to barf.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
The church is not what it claims to be. The leaders speak on behalf of an imaginary god and sell a lot of fantasy in exchange for real time and money. So, the new "history" must be merely more salesmanship and spin.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
I have a question wrote:https://lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/03-plates-of-gold
Transparent and Honest? Don’t make me laugh...
The church has never, ever, ever, operated in a transparent manner. It is a secretive cult organization which has mutated into a business enterprise that hides its financial affairs from public scrutiny and continues to dole out financial rewards to the leaders of the church and their families.
Mormonism is anything but transparent. It is a cult organization that is secretive and hides up his history and refuses to talk about the controversies which are causing the organization to crumble at its foundations.
Does the church clarify its position on the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? No. It doesn't. The church is anything but transparent.
So, when will they really be "transparent and honest" and admit to everyone that Joseph Smith made it all up?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen