Church to Address History Whitewashing?

[_Polygamy Porter]

I saw this over on thefoyer. Apparently, the Church is finally caving in to the demands that it present history that it not sugar-coated. The following is from a recent DesNews article:

Like I said before, the "quiet reformation of LDS Inc" is underway. Years from now, you can all say you heard it from me first. :)

[_The Nehor]

I saw this over on thefoyer. Apparently, the Church is finally caving in to the demands that it present history that it not sugar-coated. The following is from a recent DesNews article:

Like I said before, the "quiet reformation of LDS Inc" is underway. Years from now, you can all say you heard it from me first. :)

I think early apostates have you beat on saying it first. They claimed Joseph was changing the faith too.

[_guy sajer]

In answer to your question though....anyone who thinks much at all knows that real history is different from that available in Church publications. There's simply too little of it in the publications.

I'd bet that the vast majority of Third World converts never, even consider this. Do they, therefore, not think much at all?

Your comment reflects the world view of an educated North American and displays pretty breathtaking ignorance about the experiences, world views, and mental capacities of others coming from vastly different backgrounds.

Behind me right now I have a 600 page Institute Manual on Church History. Complicated changes in the Church are covered in a page. The Mormon Battalion got a page, the arrival in Salt Lake a page, the First Vision only got 4. It's a digest at best. I have dear friends who read less than this one book in a year outside of school and work obligations. I know this doesn't have everything in it. It's basically a few highlights.

Gee, I wonder whether this is available in Serbo-Croation.

The biggest problem faced with trying to get a more complete history out is general apathy. I was shocked when teaching an Old Testament class that most LDS couldn't work out even a sketchy outline of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus. The truth is most people just don't care. I find it bewildering but what are you going to do? How do you teach people that don't really want to learn? I know as much as I do because I've spent several hundred hours reading this stuff and I'm an amateur Mormon historian and I know that.

I agree that there is apathy, but not necessarily apathy borne of laziness, but apathy borne of multiple causes, one being a belief and confidence that the LDS Church actually practices what it preaches viz honesty and integrity and thus not even considering that it is, in fact, rather economical, shall we say, with the truth regarding its origins and history. Plus, there's that nasty, but every present problem regarding lack of time, due to trying to scratch out a living and coping with day-to-day life. Finally, there's that unfathomable tendency of members to want some diversity in their lives and not be wrapped up in Mormonism 24-7. Oh yeah, I think it's called leisure time, and there's a wide variety of ways people like to spend that don't involve reading dense tomes on actual Mormon history.

I'm sincerely asking.....how do you get the word out? I don't think it's the Church's job to do it. Apologists and critics write back and forth endlessly but who reads them......apologists and critics. Most members of the Church are aware that this stuff is going on.....and they don't care.

See above why they don’t care. I’m willing to bet, however, that were they to know that what they’ve been taught by the missionaries, what they’re taught in church, and what they read in Church publications is significantly less than fully accurate, a good many of them would care a great deal more.

The first place to start is to be more honest with prospective members and provide them with information that allows them to make an informed decision. As it is now, it is akin to a used car salesmen withholding pertinent materials facts in his possession about the car and perhaps rationalizing it away by telling himself that they’ll be better off by buying the car anyway, despite the fact that if they had access to the same information, it might significantly increase the odds that they don’t buy it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

It's always been available to those who really want it. I mean the Tanners found it, right? The best way to get more readily accessible stuff out is to get books written but the Church probably shouldn't be writing them.

This information was not "available" to the Tanners. They frequently had to "steal" it (that's the word Nibley used; it seems they had one or more inside "sources" who worked at the archives and fed them controversial documents). As a simple example of the unavailability of information, when Sidney B. Sperry inquired about the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar back in the 1950's he was repeatedly told it did not exist. It wasn't until he presented them with proof of its existence that they admitted they had it in the vault and let him see it. The Church Historian's Office long made an unofficial policy of lying about the existence of potentially embarrasing documents in their vault. The Tanners themselves were lied to by the CHO on more than one occasion.

Later, the CHO made a policy of having scholars sign a waiver that gave the Church permission to edit any work the scholars produced based on research performed in the Archives. This policy may still be in force; I'm not sure. When I requested catalog information about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers microfilm, they first grilled me about how I was going to use the information.

EDIT TO ADD: Don Bradley told me today on the phone that he had to go through a two-hour interview before he was permitted to view the archives. This was while he was a believer. The reason they hesitated to let him in was that he was investigating the Adam-God doctrine. He had to convince them that he had legitimate historical and doctrinal questions before they'd let him do his research.

-CK

[_truth dancer]

Pretty interesting.

I'm glad... for the sake of members who want to keep their testimonies. It is pretty devastating to discover that the church has presented such an incorrect and fantasy version of reality.

I recently had a conversation with a woman in my ward who asked why I was not going to the temple. I responded that I really didn't want to share much with her because I didn't want to give her questions and doubts. She pressed me and I just replied that, basically the story presented in church isn't quite reality and lets leave it at that. She responded by stating that she is comfortable with the history of the church and has read all of the Work and the Glory.
:-( OK... there you have it!

Reading the Ensign this month, it seemed very clear to me that the church is responding to members discovering the issues. Several articles were in direct response to questioning and doubting.

I really do think the PR dept is on the move!

~dancer~

[_nanking_1935]

I'd bet that the vast majority of Third World converts never, even consider this. Do they, therefore, not think much at all?

Your comment reflects the world view of an educated North American and displays pretty breathtaking ignorance about the experiences, world views, and mental capacities of others coming from vastly different backgrounds.

If Church Hostory has created so much noise in wertern world how much more if these are fullly expose to the third world countries where I was on right now. I haven't seen any church history in any homes that I've visited than the book of William Berret "Brief History Of LDS Church".

To us from third world countries, if you really want to engage in church history, you have to be an investor.

Will there be a great effect of LDS members in the third world countries if these books reached us as affordable as you guys there could afford? I guess so, It will also do a damage same as those in your world.

[_Seven]

Pretty interesting.

I'm glad... for the sake of members who want to keep their testimonies. It is pretty devastating to discover that the church has presented such an incorrect and fantasy version of reality.

I recently had a conversation with a woman in my ward who asked why I was not going to the temple. I responded that I really didn't want to share much with her because I didn't want to give her questions and doubts. She pressed me and I just replied that, basically the story presented in church isn't quite reality and lets leave it at that. She responded by stating that she is comfortable with the history of the church and has read all of the Work and the Glory.
:-( OK... there you have it!

Reading the Ensign this month, it seemed very clear to me that the church is responding to members discovering the issues. Several articles were in direct response to questioning and doubting.

I really do think the PR dept is on the move!

I noticed the same thing in the Ensign. I have a TBM cousin who only could read the Work and the Glory up to the point of polygamy. Once it got into that doctrine she wasn't able to handle it. I can't imagine if she reads "In Sacred Loneliness."
Every member I have discussed the Work and the Glory with seems to think it's a very detailed and accurate look at church history! LOL

[_Seven]

There does seem to be something wrong when the Tanners are able to portray a more accurate picture of past Church history than the Church, does it not?

Let us hope this issue is dealt with by the availability of more open access to accurate Church information.

It's always been available to those who really want it. I mean the Tanners found it, right? The best way to get more readily accessible stuff out is to get books written but the Church probably shouldn't be writing them.

How can members know to look for something that they don't know exists???????

I'm curious as to how this will be done though. It doesn't belong in the Sunday Block where Church History is only taught in the most simple sense while going over the D&C in Sunday School. Priesthood and Relief Society are even less about history. The closest you'll get to the Church teaching more comprehensive Church History is Institute and Seminary. It'll be interesting to see.

I can give some ideas of how it can be done. In many church lessons there is usually a faith promoting historical story to go along with the topic. Instead of wasting time on such fluff, the cirriculum department could insert the accurate unsanitized version of the story.

For example if they are talking about Eliza Snow, mention that she was one of Joseph's wives. If they are going to give the first wives mention, then why not the others?

If there is a lesson on the Book of Abraham, it should be known to members that the papyri was found and examined etc.
No need to delve into extreme detail, but at least stop the myths on the subject.

When there is a lesson on section 132, they could stop using the constant ellispses......."new and everlasting covenant"...... to avoid mentioning the word plural marriage being synonymous with Celestial marriage. Discuss what the section is really about. The church doesn't need to worry that members are suddenly going to start practicing polygamy by talking about the true history of 131 and 132. There is plenty of time and opportunity to address simple history in these lessons and educate the members.

The church could start by giving accurate descriptions and paintings of how Joseph Smith translated the majority of the Book of Mormon.

I could go on and on with examples of how they could improve the teaching manuals. There is no excuse for white washing history. If they have time to tell a story in class about Joseph refusing alchohol for his surgery as a child, they have time to explain that plural marriage is required for the highest degree of the CK.

[_Seven]

To me, the whole thing basically demonstrates a kind of "admission" on the part of the Church that all the secrecy regarding history is having a deleterious effect. It reminds me of the survey they sent around which eventually led to the removal of the penalties from the temple ceremony.

I thought the same thing. Maybe now we can stop hearing the apologists claim that the church doesn't white wash anything and bashing the Chapel Mormon for their ignorance.

[_Seven]

Olpin said the survey also showed that respondents:

• Want to get their information about history from the church but "don't want to hear it in Sunday School. They want Sunday activities to be devotional and inspirational.

This response bothered me from the survey because I doubt many of those people will go and read church history on their free time. If the church doesn't begin innoculating members on the accurate history with church cirriculum, I can't see how the members will be protected from the wealth of information that will be thrown at them in the upcoming years. (especially if Mitt Romney wins the nomination)

It is quite intriguing to me that this survey was initiated by the Church History Department. Is the hierarchy finally figuring out and admitting that the whitewashed history winds up causing a lot of apostasies, in spite of BKP's admonitions in "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect?" Perhaps the truth does not destroy per se, but withholding the truth---or whitewashing it---certainly does?

The PBS special has members talking. Just a few weeks back, some TBM friends of mine were criticizing the PBS show for being anti/negative/lies, and one of the guys told the others it was actually very fair and balanced. He also told them that the church needs to be more honest with it's history and then went on to explain my experience. They were unable to accept that as the reason for my leaving the church and said "no, there must be something else..." He defended me and said "No, there is nothing else. She felt betrayed by the church for misleading her in fundamental doctrines." (I wasn't there for the conversation but was informed of it)

The guy that defended me has read books like "Rough Stone Rolling", "Mormon Enigma" and "Mormon Polygamy" where the others have not read church history of any kind. He was there during my initial discovery of church history and knows that I didn't want to leave the church, had no hidden sins, etc. I was actually very surprised that this ultra TBM would defend me. It's a first! This was the first positive sign for me that members are finally awakening and feeling comfortable to discuss the truth.

Polygamy Porter is right on.......there is a reformation taking place.