Official History of the Church

[_Jersey Girl]

Is it trustworthy? What do you think?

Jersey Girl

[_moksha]

By official history, do you mean the part that is peppered with legends? If so, does that truly qualify as history as long as people know that many of the legends are not factual, but rather some form of folk tale or a faith-promoting version that is history-like?

[_Jersey Girl]

By official history, do you mean the part that is peppered with legends? If so, does that truly qualify as history as long as people know that many of the legends are not factual, but rather some form of folk tale or a faith-promoting version that is history-like?

I mean the History of the Church that is written in volumes.

Jersey Girl

[_Gazelam]

I haven't added this to my Library yet, as the $60.00 price tag is a little steep. I hope one day to get a nice hardcover set, used. I have flipped through a copy once and it was relaly interesting, the part I read was about a red ball that floated through the air through town, I think it was Kirtland, and Joseph having to explain to the people that it was not of God but of the Devil and that they should avoid such things and not follow it around like a number of them did.

While I don't have that, I do have a newer history. B H Roberts comprehensive history of the church. I've only browsed through it, but heres a little something about it:

Intended as a centennial history of the LDS Church (1830-1930), Elder B. H. Roberts's six-volume Comprehensive History of the Church stands as a high point in the publication of Church history to that time. Most earlier works were either attacks upon or defenses of the Church. Although Roberts's study was a kind of defense, he set a more even tone, a degree of uncommon objectivity.

Like several historians preceding him (Bancroft, Whitney, Tullidge), Roberts set out to produce a multivolume work. Originally a periodical series prepared for the Americana magazine, Roberts's articles appeared in forty-two-page installments between July 1909 and July 1915 (CHC 1:v-vi). As the centennial year of 1930 approached, Elder George Albert Smith suggested that Roberts bring his work up to date and that the Church publish it for the centennial.

Published in handsome bindings with numerous illustrations, the work was impressive. But to the reader of today its importance lies beyond its format. Roberts was pointing the way to a new approach; he wanted Church history to avoid apology and undiscriminating defense of the faith. For example, he was skeptical of including any myths parading as history: "I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based on worthless testimony" (Madsen, p. 363). He treated the difficulties of the Saints in Missouri objectively, assigning some elements of blame to both sides.

Roberts was willing to deal with sensitive topics. His analysis of the Mountain Meadows Massacre was fairly exacting. He was also willing to press his editors to get what he felt was fairness; he insisted on including Joseph Smith's king follett discourse despite urgings to the contrary by some members. In some ways Roberts's Comprehensive History was an act of courage; certainly it was his magnum opus.

Though not trained as a historian, Roberts was well known as an orator and as a theologian. He read widely and was a vibrant politician, a noted missionary, and a popular Church leader. His theological writings continue to attract attention. All of this energy, even charisma, flows into his writing, producing rhapsodic prose that sometimes overshoots the mark. He wrote in the Romantic style, accepting Prescott and Parkman as his models.

The Comprehensive History is the high-water mark of studies produced before academic scholars undertook the writing of Church history after 1950. Roberts shows a faithfulness to documentary sources and rules of evidence. The six-volume set is a worthy monument to the Church's first century and still attracts serious attention.

To answer your question, I would say that yes, you can trust it.

[_truth dancer]

The answer is a very clear no.

I'm pretty sure most well informed members know it is not reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm thinking we need Dan Vogel to shed some light on the topic! ;-)

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

Hey, lookee here, I found it online:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/index.html

[_Jersey Girl]

Thank you, Gaz!!!!! I saw an excerpt on another board and I just want to verify it.

Jersey Girl

(You still need to read Piaget and Kohlberg though ;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

The answer is a very clear no.

I'm pretty sure most well informed members know it is not reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm thinking we need Dan Vogel to shed some light on the topic! ;-)

~dancer~

Dan's opinion would be very welcomed on this thread and you ought to check your email.

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_Gazelam]

You still need to read Piaget and Kohlberg though

Next time my inner child pitches a temper tantrum, I'll look them up : )

[_Jason Bourne]

What was once called the Documentive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has much good information. Documents, letters, petitions and some writings of Joseph Smith. However, much of it was written by scribes and reconstructed but then written in first person. It does follow the official history of the Church as far as the foundations and the accounts it relates. For example, the 1838 FV account is in it.

One of my concerns as I have studied it is there was heavy editing done in some cases that changes what the original comments, diary entries or statements said. Some change things a lot. I started a thread on a few of these a number of months ago. It is pretty clear the BY and crew edited some things to bolster their succession rights, polygamy, denying the priresthood to women and other such things.


But over all, you certianly can get a feel for the development of the Church from an insiders point of view.