Church history - the middle path

[_Hagoth]

Hi, new here and going through a faith crisis situation. I'm not looking to leave the church but trying to reinvent my place in it. Last year I listened to a FAIR conference talk about shaken faith syndrome. The speaker talked about the A, B and C viewpoints of church history and I remember a quote, I think from Spencer W. Kimball about this. Can anyone refresh my memory about Pres. Kimball's exact words? Something along the lines of "there's the official church history and there's the anti-mormon version - the truth is somewhere in between."

Thanks,
Hagoth

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I haven't seen the quote, but I don't know how there can be any middle ground with some Mormon apologists because they label anything that disagrees with official church history as anti-Mormon.

Welcome to the boards.

[Guest]

Don't know about SWK, but here is how GBH put things fairly recently.

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."

- Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

Doesn't appear to be much "in between" here.

According to this and many other similar statements by a modern prophets of the Church, in order to be a good Mormon one has to swallow it all; hook, line and toxic lead sinker.
________________________
And welcome to the board.

[_cinepro]

I haven't seen the quote, but I don't know how there can be any middle ground with some Mormon apologists because they label anything that disagrees with official church history as anti-Mormon.

Welcome to the boards.

With all due respect, that doesn't sound like any apologists that are currently defending the faith that I know.

Most are all too aware of the truth about Mormon history, and formulate their apologetic arguments to include or "contextualize" the true history instead of denying it.

I think the ideal that Ash was referring to was a faith that can acknowledge the existence of the "true" history without being damaged by it. Some people are able to attain this level of nirvana, but I suspect the success rate is too low for the Church to ever officially disseminate anything but the fluffiest version of that history.

[_moksha]

Most are all too aware of the truth about Mormon history, and formulate their apologetic arguments to include or "contextualize" the true history instead of denying it.

Possible examples of this could be redefining the question to what should have been asked and even issuing a call for references on previously discussed matters so as to bog down the discussion point. Personal attack could be viewed as another type of contextualizing.

[_Simon Belmont]

Hi, new here and going through a faith crisis situation. I'm not looking to leave the church but trying to reinvent my place in it. Last year I listened to a FAIR conference talk about shaken faith syndrome. The speaker talked about the A, B and C viewpoints of church history and I remember a quote, I think from Spencer W. Kimball about this. Can anyone refresh my memory about Pres. Kimball's exact words? Something along the lines of "there's the official church history and there's the anti-mormon version - the truth is somewhere in between."

Thanks,
Hagoth

I highly recommend this article by Davis Bitton:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hurch.html

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I highly recommend this article by Davis Bitton:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hurch.html

Interesting article. It starts with poisoning the well by saying that "anti-Mormons" really aren't pursuers of truth, tells us that Mormon historians are much smarter than non-Mormon historians, explains why history really isn't all that important to your testimony, and those are just the highlights.

It seems as though he anticipates that each of his explanations will possibly fail and proposes a ready alternative.

"Mormon critics are dishonest. No? Well would you believe they aren't as smart? No? Well why don't we just ignore history for the sake of your testimony? No? Well, golly, some of the claims can't be proven true or false, so we'll just assume they are true. No?..."

And on it goes... Honestly, I think that article is the last thing you would want to show to a Mormon struggling with his testimony. Unless your intent is just to blame him if he deconverts, I really don't see how that article could possibly help.

[_DrW]

I highly recommend this article by Davis Bitton:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hurch.html

Many of the assertions in this article are exactly those made by John Dehlin in his now famous video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZQJc5SxnVs
One only needs to follow John's trajectory from TBM to NOM to essentially inactive to realize how this logic plays out.

Simon, if you think this article helps your cause, you need to view John's video, follow up on his (very typical) story, and consider how many ex-Mormons / post Mormons cite this video as an important waypoint in their journey out of the Church.

[_Joseph]

Read various accounts and look at sources when I can find them.

But, after finding out a number of lies why would I believe anything lds-inc says? I have come to the point where I automatically turn off lds-inc speakers who give talks on honesty and integrity. They are worse than used car salesmen.