The Accuracy of Mormon History

[Guest]

I have often heard many well meaning members or apologists try and defend difficult problems within Mormon history by claiming that church history is not always reliable. These defenders of the faith rarely question the reliability of the uncontroversial revelations and prophecies, however, when the "reliability" argument is used it's only applied to the most debated statements that draw the most scrutiny such as the following:

• The Adam-god theory
• Joseph Smith was told that if he lived to be 85 he would see the face of the Son of Man
• the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.
• the grease spot prophecy
• unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left…

At times apologists will question the accuracy due to a scribes ability to transcribe correctly or he may have "miss heard" allowing once again for plausible deniability and back-door escapes.

However when juxtaposed to the following quotes it would leave one with the feeling that many church leaders believe it's history to be “the most accurate history on earth and a man can get closer to the truth through Mormon history than any other book.”

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was commanded on the day of it’s organization (April 6, 1830) to keep an accurate record of its history. This has been done faithfully to this day. So complete and minute is this record that no existing organization can surpass it. . . . Undoubtedly, now and then an event may have escaped the historian, . . . Nevertheless, every effort was made to preserve Church annals of all kinds, even to casual memoranda, correspondence, newspaper accounts of Church affairs, and even payments of postage on letters. Besides, Joseph Smith’s own journal was kept regularly. . . . The History of Joseph Smith, published by the Church, as to events and dates, may be accepted as an unusually accurate historical document."
(Evidences and Reconciliations, Is the “History of Joseph Smith” Trustworthy? By, John A. Witsoe, p. 331;333)

"Well, we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They may find what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the church is clear and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues."
( Dec. 25, 2005 interview with The Associated Press)

[_Sethbag]

Widtsoe was just writing as a man. Besides, he was only an Apostle when he wrote that, not the President of the Church. Doesn't count. We all know only one person other than the Prophet is authorized to establish official doctrines of the church, and that man is not John Widtsoe. It's Elder News H. Room.

[_PrickKicker]

Widtsoe was just writing as a man. Besides, he was only an Apostle when he wrote that, not the President of the Church. Doesn't count. We all know only one person other than the Prophet is authorized to establish official doctrines of the church, and that man is not John Widtsoe. It's Elder News H. Room.

Seriously?

I thought all apostles are ordained as Prophet seer and revelator. But the excuse is: sometimes the prophet speaks as the prophet, and sometimes its personal opinion.

Which is another reason I struggle to believe anymore, why sell BS books in their own book stores and use them as references in their manuals, if they constantly deny the doctrines contained within?
its not just 'Mormon Doctrine' by BRM. the only man with balls enough to release such a book... its old seminary, institute and priesthood, relief society manuals they refer to it BRM MD, when it suits them and say its personal opinion when it doesn't.

Another thing that really pisses me off is that one of the recent priesthood manuals is says, Parley P Pratt was a 'Martyr and died for his beliefs' when actually he was stabbed in the heart by the estranged husband of one of his several wives, for taking her away from him. It is misleading statements like this that the church covers up what is real and by leaving information out and replaceing it with something more, how can I put it ...helpful.

[_Drifting]

"Well, we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They may find what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the church is clear and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues."
( Dec. 25, 2005 interview with The Associated Press)

This is clearly a blatant lie by the person giving the interview.

[_Sethbag]

Widtsoe was just writing as a man. Besides, he was only an Apostle when he wrote that, not the President of the Church. Doesn't count. We all know only one person other than the Prophet is authorized to establish official doctrines of the church, and that man is not John Widtsoe. It's Elder News H. Room.

Seriously?

Of course not. That's the mopologist spiel though. Yeah, it's really, really lame.

I thought all apostles are ordained as Prophet seer and revelator. But the excuse is: sometimes the prophet speaks as the prophet, and sometimes its personal opinion.

You recall the answer Hinckely gave on TV when asked if he was a real prophet?

"I am sustained as such."

He wouldn't even claim his title. "I'm not saying I am or not, but these guys over here say I am." That's just super lame.

Which is another reason I struggle to believe anymore, why sell BS books in their own book stores and use them as references in their manuals, if they constantly deny the doctrines contained within?
its not just 'Mormon Doctrine' by BRM. the only man with balls enough to release such a book... its old seminary, institute and priesthood, relief society manuals they refer to it BRM MD, when it suits them and say its personal opinion when it doesn't.

Preach it brother. I really can't stand the mopologists anymore. They aren't defending what Mormonism has been or is - they are defending some gerrymandered mopologist version of it from which they think they have excised all of the vulnerable parts. Well that's just stupid.

Anyone who's ever been active in the church knows that in church on Sundays Mormons will treat anything said by the Apostles or other General Authorities as iron-clad truth. And this goes for Mormon Doctrine, the Journal of Discourses, old General Conference talks, Ensign articles, etc. Then the mopologists step up and try to assert that almost nothing ever said by the GAs anywhere, from books to talks in Conferences, actually need be treated as authoritative. By simply dismissing all of it as the opinions of man, they no longer have to account for all the problems it causes.

Mormon history, as taught by the church, is whitewashed to the point of absurdity, and they know this.

Another thing that really pisses me off is that one of the recent priesthood manuals is says, Parley P Pratt was a 'Martyr and died for his beliefs' when actually he was stabbed in the heart by the estranged husband of one of his several wives, for taking her away from him. It is misleading statements like this that the church covers up what is real and by leaving information out and replaceing it with something more, how can I put it ...helpful.

Yeah, similar to how many LDS would tell you, based on things they've seen and heard in church and from church films and books and whatnot, that Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage because he wouldn't renounce the Book of Mormon or whatever.

[_MCB]

Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage because he wouldn't renounce the Book of Mormon or whatever.

According to Hawkins Taylor, then sheriff of Lee County Iowa, Joseph Smith was killed because he and his friends protected and perhaps directed the criminal element among the Mormons. Gadiantons, anyone? Significantly, his own brother William was cooperative in many cases, yet he later strongly rejected Brigham Young's leadership.

So what else is new?

[_PrickKicker]

Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage because he wouldn't renounce the Book of Mormon or whatever.

According to Hawkins Taylor, then sheriff of Lee County Iowa, Joseph Smith was killed because he and his friends protected and perhaps directed the criminal element among the Mormons. Gadiantons, anyone? Significantly, his own brother William was cooperative in many cases, yet he later strongly rejected Brigham Young's leadership.

So what else is new?

Hell yeh,

Not only was his Mormon army taking all the ladies, he made an independent bank and nicked everyone's money, then he sent out missionaires to the world, telling everyone to gather there and there would be land there waiting for them, and when they got there there wasn't.

Them's the real reason he was killed.

[Guest]

...

[_son of Ishmael]

what is the grease spot prophecy?

[_Gunnar]

My "future telling abilities" tell me that president Romney will set a new precedence with respect to church members and the tithing they pay.

Speaking of Mitt Romney, I'm not sure which will ultimately have the most impact (whether good or bad) on the LDS Church--Romney losing the coming Presidential election, or winning it. I sort of suspect that if he wins, he will not be as deferential to LDS leadership or Mormon dogma and policies as they would expect or like him to be. With the political clout and power he will then have, I would not be surprised to find that the LDS leadership proves to be more deferential to to him than he to them.