Drifting wrote:I think Themis hits on the exact point.
No he doesn't....
The fact is that the Church pretends to be historically accurate in all of its teaching programmes: Primary, Sunday School, Seminary, Institute, Gospel Doctrine, Investigators.
The Church IS historically accurate..... What you don't understand is that there is a difference between being historically accurate and telling ALL history. More importantly, there is a difference between being historically accurate and telling the anti-mormon version of history.
You want the Church to teach anti-mormon history, and that is simply something it will never do.
As someone who's been a basic believer, and an anti-mormon, I know FOR SURE the Church is being honest in it's basic telling of history. It's your false assumptions and beliefs that are in error, not the Church.
The Church teaches the restoration of the Gospel as a historic event. It teaches specific historic elements such as the significant things that Joseph did, said or which happened to him. The infobia is evidenced by the things the Church leaves out of the materials of these teaching programmes.
The Church focuses on the history that relate to the "Restored Gospel".
It omits MANY things that ARE NOT even "problematic" or "questionable".....
Thus, your claim that it omits things simply because they might not look good, is false. The Church omits the irrelevant and anti-mormon views, no matter what it is.
The translation method of the Book of Mormon is one such example. The Church, when teaching about how it was translated, exclusively uses the Urim & Thummim method. Not only is that not the only method used, it's not the main method used to produce the Book of Mormon.
Actually, the most taught method by the Church is nothing at all. Sitting at a table with plates, and a scribe. The second method IS the Urim & Thummim, but what you don't realize is that the Urim & Thummim WAS the most dominant method otherwise, whether it was used with a breastplate, whether it was placed in the hat, whether the Sear Stone acted as the Urim & Thummim in the hat, etc. The "concept" of the Urim & Thummim WAS the most dominant method used, other than nothing at all.
The Church is being truthful.... I gave the link already to all the known accounts, and the vast majority point to the Urim & Thummim by whatever method.
The Church teaches about the historic practice of polygamy, but it doesn't teach an accurate history.
It teaches an accurate history based on what is known to actually BE ACCURATE, and especially as it relates to the Gospel. The Rumor Mill of "sex" etc. is not Gospel, and is historically valid enough to be emphasized as "true history" by a group.
The Church teaches about the historic events culminating in Joseph's death, leaving out specific but materially important elements of the tale.
The Church doesn't leave out anything important..... It tells the basic story of events.
Religious prejudice and bigotry killed a bunch of people. Bigots always have their "excuses" for hate. Still doesn't change the facts and truth.
The question is not wether or not the Church avoids teaching an accurate history - that much is conclusively proven.
The Church DOES teach an accurate history, and what is "conclusively proven" is that anti-mormons do not, but only think they do.
The question is why it doesn't? The Church has an article of faith exhorting people to be honest and true. Dallin Oaks has articulated honesty to include deliberately leaving bits of information out. I don't think it is wrong to expect the Church to lead by example.
Since the Church IS honest, your question is irrelevant...... What you don't understand is that it is YOU who are dishonest, who doesn't teach a full and true history. Having been you, I actually know this for sure.....