Moniker wrote:History is fun!
BishopRic, I agree with you about the Church and the history. If they didn't dwell on certain aspects then it would seem that fewer would have qualms with them just being a Church. Yet, this Church in particular seems to make it a point to dwell on the early Church history, the founder, the trials of Joseph Smith and those early members, etc... They WANT certain history being repeated and focused on -- well, there's some unsavory history there, as well. Most mainstream Protestants don't talk about the early Church, the persecution of Christians, etc... etc... etc... -- it's 'cause it's not necessary for them to focus on the message of Jesus.
You apparently don't get that the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, is a history of the early Christian Church, and is widely used by "most mainstream Protestants" in focusing on the message of Jesus.
The same is true for we LDS, though we also utilize other scriptural works of history as yet other testaments focusing on the message of Jesus Christ. Our ultimate intent in utilizing history from various sources and on a variety of subjectmatters, is to bring mankind to Christ.
Since that is our intent, it would make sense to utilize those aspects of history that will best affect that end. Our use of history, then, is purpose-driven, and not an end unto itself. As such, it would make sense for us to focus more on the savory parts of history, and not so much on the unsavory parts--your's and Rick's assumption to the contrary notwithstanding.
I hope this helps clear up at least some of your confusion. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-