Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it?????s Oaks....

[_I have a question]

“Church history can be a significant source of faith,” Elder Cook said. But for some, church history “has been misunderstood or overlooked” or “crowded out by larger concerns of the world.”

Some people “have even purposely misrepresented stories of the past to sow doubt,” he said.

“In learning more, we will bind our hearts together with saints of yesterday and today. We will find examples of imperfect people who went forward with faith and allowed God to work through them to accomplish his work.”

(Elder Cook, September 2018, promoting research of Church History)
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... story.html

The Church History Department is not trying to hide or censor history, but instead trying to make church history “accessible, available and understandable,” said Grow.

“The history of the church can withstand scrutiny,” he added. “We don’t need to be afraid of it. It is inspiring. Sometimes we will have questions. But there are good answers.”

Four months later, research is not the answer...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

"The Glory of God is Obstinence."

I don't know. I don't want to know. But I know.

- Doc "I feel the Spirit witnessing" NC4Me

[_Philo Sofee]

The reason Oaks reading everything Joseph Smith ever wrote confirms his testiomony and faith is because he has decided the truth already, and simply shrugs off that which disconfirms his belief. I did that myself for years. He thinks it's convincing, but it's not. Not anymore than the already convinced believer of the Urantia Book told me. "I have read this book ten times, and it totally confirms my beliefs!" Well, uh, DUH! That is irrelevant to its supposed truth or falseness. Surely Oaks would not accept the Urantia Book based on that testimony. Why should we accept his own? It is evidence that determines truth, not fervency or testimony statements of belief.

Does the fervency of the Dalai Lama show Mormon Apostles his religion is true? If not why not? He literally LIVES it for 24/7 and has for decades. They want that to be truth confirming for them, then why not for the Dalai Lama? The fervency and testimony of William Lane Craig, the Bible thumpin Evangelical outdoes anything I have ever seen from any of the Brethren. Is his truth the right one to accept based on that? Which Apostle would join Craig based on his testimony? I predict none of them. So why is their conviction any different?

[_I have a question]

Oaks admitted an awful lot in that little phrase. “I don’t think research is the answer.”

Research is not an answer at all, research is a process by which answers to questions can be gleaned. What Oaks is admitting is that researching Church history (the context to him saying that phrase is as a response to what members can do to help their faith-shaken spouses deal with questions about Church history), even through Church provided trustworthy sources, isn’t going to bring answers that support what the Church would have you believe. Not only that, Oaks is frightened that the believing member, in an effort to help their now disbelieving spouse, will find answers by doing their research that will shake their faith too.

Four months ago the Church launched “Saints” a faithful history and encouraged members, especially young members, to research Church history in great detail.

Considering all the Church has published in the last decade with an emphasis on transparency, culminating with the release of the multi-volume "Saints" series, why is it so important for Church members, especially young adults, to know and understand the history of the church in greater detail?

I think it's important for Latter-day Saints to understand what the history is and that we don't need to be afraid of our history. We need to know the history to understand any challenging issues within their context.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-r ... -you-48023

Now Holland is telling the Maxwell Institute to cease and desist from doing honest scholarship into Mormon studies, and instead start cherry picking only those things that faith promoting. Now Oaks is telling faithful members to not look into the questions their spouses have about Church history. You’ve got the Renlunds telling members the Church is a shoddy vessel with an unlistening Captain who hasn’t got his hand on the rudder and who supplies them with inferior stale morsels as sustinence. You’ve got Corbridge telling members he’s read everything so they don’t have to, amend they should stick to the questions they learnt the answers to in Primary. You’ve got the Church retracting it’s belief in the Hill Cumorah and trying to portray it never espoused an opinion on where the Book of Mormon took place.

What a &*%$£$@ mess.

Renlund’s right, the running lights might still be on, but there’s nobody at the helm.