Should the LDS Church provide membership with full details of its history?

[scottie]

By full details of history, I'm referring to the stuff we talk about all the time here -- general details of JS's polygamy and polyandry and the lying to Emma, alternate versions of the First Vision, BOM translation methods, etc.

I'm sincerely interested in hearing what you think. I voted undecided.

If you think they should, what would be the best way to implement this? A series of First Presidency satellite broadcasts? A full General Conference weekend dedicated to it? Distribute it through the mission/stake presidencies? Other? If I thought they should proceed to share the information, my vote would be FP satellite broadcasts and instructions given to mission/stake presidencies.

What are the risks of presenting this information? I think there are definitely risks, but I don't have time right now to detail what I think they might be.

[Indy Coug]

You seem to be making the assumption that there exists somewhere an official, complete history of the church with little-to-no blanks to fill on the who, why, where and how.

I simply don't think the church could provide what you are talking about because it would essentially put an official stamp that what is shared is absolutely, positively what happened and how it happened when that isn't necessarily the case.

That would be irresponsible.

[creekster]

I am not voting as I dont like th eoptions. I think they should continue wioht the correlated method but exapnd the scope of materials included in that method. I think asking for a fireside to present these things is a bit much.

[scottie]

You seem to be making the assumption that there exists somewhere an official, complete history of the church with little-to-no blanks to fill on the who, why and where.

I simply don't think the church could provide what you are talking about because it would essentially put an official stamp that what is shared is absolutely, positively what happened and how it happened when that isn't necessarily the case.

That would be irresponsible.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you think the correlated model is more responsible?

[beefytee]

I voted to maintain correlation.

I'm all for the church opening up its archives and even publishing scholarly work, but this stuff isn't for Sunday school or church broadcasts.

They could mention them in the Church News or ensign, but I don't see the point of making them part of the curriculum.

[DU Ute]

You seem to be making the assumption that there exists somewhere an official, complete history of the church with little-to-no blanks to fill on the who, why and where.

I simply don't think the church could provide what you are talking about because it would essentially put an official stamp that what is shared is absolutely, positively what happened and how it happened when that isn't necessarily the case.

That would be irresponsible.

Excellent point. Also, I don't think there is any amount of disclosure or openness that would prevent some people from still claiming the Church is trying to sugar-coat or cover up parts of its history. This stuff is out there, having the Church validate it won't change its truthfulness. I am fine with not validating every tiny detail as long as the Church isn't actively trying to suppress or deny factual information.

[jay santos]

I think full details of church history leads to doubt more often than it leads to faith, so I don't think the church will do it or maybe even should do it. I don't believe in the inoculation theory acting like an immunization for doubt. I see it making everyone autistic. One positive might be that it kills off a large part of the first generation but later generations are stronger.

[SeattleUte]

Has the LDS Church opened its super secret vaults containing historical documents never before seen (unless they've been opened) by secular historians? I honestly don't know. It's an honest question asked with goodwill and in good faith.

This, to me, is the relevant question. I sympathize with Indy's point that history is always reinterpreted and debated. No matter what the LDS Church presented as its official history, even if done in good faith, would be subject to attack.

Moreover, the LDS Church is not in the history business. As far as I'm concerned it's folly for it even to have an official historian. It's a religion and hence does not trade in empiricism.

So, I as well respectfully abstain from the vote.

[Moliere]

I voted to maintain correlation.

I'm all for the church opening up its archives and even publishing scholarly work, but this stuff isn't for Sunday school or church broadcasts.

They could mention them in the Church News or ensign, but I don't see the point of making them part of the curriculum.

I'd prefer to not have correlation, but I also don't think we should be discussing some things in gospel doctrine. I do think the information should be easier to access. If anything, finding out that JS was not perfect and had many, many faults has really helped me reconcile (or stop trying to reconcile) certain things pertaining to how I used to perceive the church.

I think correlation does a disservice to the church as a whole. Maybe it's not apparent at first, but the more I learn about it the more I dislike it. I'm currently on podcast #2 with Daymon Smith so this is an interesting topic to me right now.

[Donuthole]

Has the LDS Church opened its super secret vaults containing historical documents never before seen (unless they've been opened) by secular historians? I honestly don't know. It's an honest question asked with goodwill and in good faith.

Literal Lol (with you, of course). Nice work.

[ERCougar]

I really have no idea how to answer this, although I'd lean to correlation. I see the church as maintained by a structural skeleton of TBM's fleshed out with more liberal mormons. Both are necessary. The liberal mormons give it life and vitality, the TBM's give it structure and keep us from disintegrating into the Community of Christ (or whatever they're called).

Those who hate correlation tend to also be the first to complain of bad lessons gone awry on crazy tangents.

[jay santos]

I really have no idea how to answer this, although I'd lean to correlation. I see the church as maintained by a structural skeleton of TBM's fleshed out with more liberal mormons. Both are necessary. The liberal mormons give it life and vitality, the TBM's give it structure and keep us from disintegrating into the Community of Christ (or whatever they're called).

Those who hate correlation tend to also be the first to complain of bad lessons gone awry on crazy tangents.

Good post. I think this is the future of the church. And also count me in the camp as preferring a boring, correlated lesson to a wild speculation lesson with comments about what types of animals we will create on our planet when we're Gods (and this was a comment made by a bishop during a priest quorum meeting).

[Indy Coug]

Good post. I think this is the future of the church. And also count me in the camp as preferring a boring, correlated lesson to a wild speculation lesson with comments about what types of animals we will create on our planet when we're Gods (and this was a comment made by a bishop during a priest quorum meeting).

Doesn't Avatar make you the least bit curious about this topic?

[jay santos]

Doesn't Avatar make you the least bit curious about this topic?

And if I believed deification the way this bishop believed was a true, authorized doctrine I probably wouldn't mind.

[DU Ute]

Has the LDS Church opened its super secret vaults containing historical documents never before seen (unless they've been opened) by secular historians? I honestly don't know. It's an honest question asked with goodwill and in good faith.

This, to me, is the relevant question. I sympathize with Indy's point that history is always reinterpreted and debated. No matter what the LDS Church presented as its official history, even if done in good faith, would be subject to attack.

Moreover, the LDS Church is not in the history business. As far as I'm concerned it's folly for it even to have an official historian. It's a religion and hence does not trade in empiricism.

So, I as well respectfully abstain from the vote.

The church has opened the Super Secret Vault, but not the Super Duper Extra Top Secret Vault.