Church to Address History Whitewashing?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

This is a good point. For the most part, a majority of members are cultural Mormons. They are strong in faith, and much of their faith that the church is true comes from the fact that attending church makes them happy, and so many good, decent, and intelligent people also believe it is true. How many have actually read the Book of Mormon enough to know it is talking about a real civilzation that existed for 1000 years somewhere in America, and that the civilization in the Book of Mormon doesn't match up too well with what we know about Ancient Native Americans?

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.

I agree. Most members don't care, and the 3 hour block isn't really an appropriate time to get into deep discussions on Mormon history, warts and all. The best approach would be a Know Your Religion type evening course on REAL church history. I wouldn't expect a Brodie approach, but a Bushman style history lesson would be great for those who are interested. It only takes a handful of interested people to take this Know your Relgion's History class to get the word out. Then, during Gospel Doctrine class, these people can make intelligent comments, which will spark discussions and get others interested in real Mormon history. Could you imagine a Gospel Doctrine class that is actually interesting and educational? I think it would be a good thing for the church.

[_Mercury]

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.

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.

No it has not. And besides, if you were getting the real history from sources outside the church, your committing a sin, participating in the reading of "anti Mormon" literature.

[_DonBradley]

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.

Just to clarify, that was a number of years back, and part of the reason for the lengthy interview was that I was 18 years old at the time. I think it is to the credit of my interviewer that I was allowed to research this tremendously controversial topic when I demonstrated that I had a legitimate new historical angle or two on it.

So far as I can see, the Archives have only become more open since then.

The principal continuing barrier to research is that so many General Authority collections are entirely closed to research, even though their creators (in many cases) died well over a century ago and created their journals and other materials with the express intent that they be used to provide a record of church history.

Gordon B. Hinckley, and his irrepressable optimism, have had a salutary effect on the Church Historical Department. President Hinckley is optimistic enough to believe that being more open about church history will only tend to confirm the truth of the faith. I hope he lives (at least) to his centennial. I also hope (fingers crossed) that he opens up many more General Authority collections to research.

Don

[Schreech]

Nothing new to say, but my take as a European (in response to Nehor's post) is that even for someone eager to look at the church in a more rounded fashion the availability of good source books was a big problem, certainly up to the development of the internet.

I have a number of LDS friends (actually thinking about it, many of whom are university educated) who are absolutely not interested in the history of the church. (Probably going along the line of Davis Bitton's arguments) The church is the restored church of Jesus Christ, what more is there to know or understand. There is the beauty and the simplicity, everything else is fluff..... This is/was mostly the position of most of my still active Mormon friends.
None had heard of Fanny Alger for instance or Joseph's polyandry (and grief I don't have the heart to want to weaken their testimony by informing them of the evidence out there)

Actually, I don't know if their positions have changed at all...or whether they as European's even know of the PBS documentary or Bushman's book for instance...

Any European active LDS on the board care to comment??????

Mary

[_Sethbag]

There's one problem here, and that is that the church isn't actually true, and the history of the church, that is, the parts they do their best to de-emphasize and hide from people through misdirection, help demonstrate that. If the church were to truly help people know and understand the kinds of things Joseph Smith and Brigham Young really did, a heck of a lot more people would see that the church is actually man-made, not God-made, and leave it. As it is, how many exmos and non-believers do we see now, who actually had to overcome the stigma of "anti-mormon" materials to get the story, and then left? But the bottom line is that the real history of this church is the history of a man-made church, and so they really cannot ever teach the real history of this church and survive.

[_Mary]

Sethbag, I don't doubt (personally) that the church is absolutely man-made and man-led. But I am willing to give that there may be divine elements and influences working within it.

Mary

[_barrelomonkeys]

This is something that bothers me intensely. The reason I started visiting LDS boards was because my step-son was spouting off about anti-Mormons. I'd never heard such a thing. Most of what he thinks are vicious anti-Mormon lies are in fact the truth. I'm so afraid of what will happen when he one day discovers that not only was he not correct but that he defended the Church from "evil liars" who were in fact telling the truth.

I'm so glad the Church is tackling this.