Whose fault? Yours or the church's?

[All-American]

I'm not sure the argument "The whole story is absurd, so what's a little more absurdity?" is all that convincing.

People leave the church over polygamy, blood atonement, the idea of Joseph as a modern prophet. How many people left over the head in the hat thing? If you can find reference to more than five such people, I will give you a dollar.

[Taq Man]

right. and one of those little LED book lights so you could see your crib notes in the hat. Or maybe enough light came in by the venitlation holes. Sure, that was it. Or maybe some moth holes. Of course, then it owuld be easy for th ewintesses to see the crib notes, but the witnesses are all inaccurate, so they might have just failed to mentionthe crib notes, aLthough they are accurate when they say he did all translation with a hat.

Might need a few holes in the hat, who's to say Josephs face had an air tight seal around the hat edges either.

Personally I don't think Joseph cheated, I think it all came from his brilliant and talented mind.

As I said for myself, I would want some crib notes.

[LA Ute]

It just occurred to me (waiting for a conference call to start, which is how I have spent half the day today) that I hope someday to meet J.S. and I'd love to get 5 spirit world minutes to ask him a few questions. These come to mind:

*How many marriages did you really enter into and why?

*What is the story on the polyandry thing?

*Why the hat?

*Bonus questions: How did you translate the gold plates, and how did you get the Book of Abraham out of those facsimiles?

If you have 5 minutes with Joseph Smith, what would you ask him?

[CardiacCoug]

You're being really bass-ackwards about this topic. Given that I believe A through Y, the fact that Z deals with sealed plates yet to be translated is a very minor item.

Since you don't believe A through Y, I don't expect you to go along with Z either.

If you don't believe this stuff, then fine. But your mockery of faith on this board gets worse with time and increasingly tiresome.

You are being hypersensitive and overly defensive about this.

Where do you get the "mockery of faith" thing? If anything, I'm impressed and somewhat envious of people who are certain of very specific historical and religious details that seem highly unlikely to me. I endorse the belief that the Book of Mormon is inspiring and seems to teach many true, Christian principles.

However, it's the great confidence that you and many people have in these details (e.g. that there was a sealed portion of the plates) that I find baffling. If Joseph didn't view the plates when translating then why would it matter if part was "sealed"? Why would the sealed portion have been preserved and delivered to Joseph if neither he nor anyone else was meant to translate it over the next two centuries? Doesn't it make more sense that perhaps Joseph got the idea of a "sealed" book from Isaiah? And then that the false story about Charles Anthon evolved somehow in an attempt by Martin Harris and Joseph to "fulfill" the prophecy in Isaiah and gain some credibility in that manner?

That's my train of thought when I think about the supposed "sealed" portion. The above is not an attempt to mock anyone -- it's simply a list of a few things that most objective outside observers would wonder about.

[CardiacCoug]

People leave the church over polygamy, blood atonement, the idea of Joseph as a modern prophet. How many people left over the head in the hat thing? If you can find reference to more than five such people, I will give you a dollar.

Obviously some people who have authority at Church headquarters think that being honest about the "head in the hat thing" would damage the faith of some members.

Otherwise we would be showing Primary and Seminary kids Taq man's avatar with Joseph's head in the hat instead of the depiction to which Solon linked.

[SoonerCoug]

Obviously some people who have authority at Church headquarters think that being honest about the "head in the hat thing" would damage the faith of some members.

Otherwise we would be showing Primary and Seminary kids Taq man's avatar with Joseph's head in the hat instead of the depiction to which Solon linked.

You are completely missing the point. It's all a matter of faith. If it were about history or facts, then Church leaders would be open to sharing all the facts. This is not unlike the Islamic regime in Iran or Chinese and Soviet communism. Just like these regimes, the Church must suppress certain facts in order to maintain maximum loyalty. Speaking ill of the Lord's anointed is also very damaging to faith, so this must also be dealt with. Furthermore, certain types of literature must be avoided. Probing questions about history are also harmful, especially at church. At a minimum, tough questions are seen as a sign of weakness or lack of spirituality. At other times, doubts are viewed as "mockery." This sort of groupthink tends to keep radicals like yourself in line. But these aren't the rules of ordinary men. These are the rules of elderly men who speak face-to-face with Jesus in the temple. They know what's best for us to know and what's best not to know.

If you walked into Sunday School and mentioned Joseph Smith translating with his head in a hat, 95% of the people there would be outraged by your blasphemy. At a minimum they'd say: "That's not true!" I know this from polling that I have done myself in the hallways at Church with some of the Mormon folks that I'm less afraid of offending.

[CardiacCoug]

You are completely missing the point. It's all a matter of faith. If it were about history or facts, then Church leaders would be open to sharing all the facts.

In all honesty, I find this well-known Boyd K. Packer talk fascinating -- it really provides some great insight into how the Brethren feel about Church history.

Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…

The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs! (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

[Jarid in Cedar]

In all honesty, I find this well-known Boyd K. Packer talk fascinating -- it really provides some great insight into how the Brethren feel about Church history.

The bottom line is that the Church has a credibility issue when it comes to dealing with its own history.

[All-American]

Obviously some people who have authority at Church headquarters think that being honest about the "head in the hat thing" would damage the faith of some members.

Otherwise we would be showing Primary and Seminary kids Taq man's avatar with Joseph's head in the hat instead of the depiction to which Solon linked.

So you don't know of any who left the church over the head in the hat, then?

[CardiacCoug]

The bottom line is that the Church has a credibility issue when it comes to dealing with its own history.

Definitely.

To be fair, all corporate entities seek to maintain and cultivate a positive image and avoid controversy and scandal. We wouldn't expect the Mayo Clinic to publish a history that emphasized the rumored fact that the original Mayo Brothers liked to imbibe prior to performing surgery.

For better or worse, the Church functions like any other corporate entity with an image and rosy "history" that must be actively maintained. I think in the era of the internet, it will be much more difficult to avoid some of the trickier issues, though. The emphasis needs to shift to the benefits and good works of the present-day Church and away from an appeal to its founding history, in my opinion.

[CardiacCoug]

So you don't know of any who left the church over the head in the hat, then?

I don't. But obviously people who are inspired and much more knowledgeable about what is good for the Church think the "head in the hat" must be suppressed. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Definitely.

To be fair, all corporate entities seek to maintain and cultivate a positive image and avoid controversy and scandal. We wouldn't expect the Mayo Clinic to publish a history that emphasized the rumored fact that the original Mayo Brothers liked to imbibe prior to performing surgery.

For better or worse, the Church functions like any other corporate entity with an image and rosy "history" that must be actively maintained. I think in the era of the internet, it will be much more difficult to avoid some of the trickier issues, though. The emphasis needs to shift to the benefits and good works of the present-day Church and away from an appeal to its founding history, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, they have boxed themselves into a corner on this. Getting out of that corner may turn out to be more pain than they want to endure.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In all honesty, I find this well-known Boyd K. Packer talk fascinating -- it really provides some great insight into how the Brethren feel about Church history.

You are cherry-picking by picking BKP as your example. I have to believe he represents the extreme viewpoint among the brethren. I don't see that talk quoted or the topic repeated by any church leaders since that time. I think that is a sign of hope. Of course, a repudiation would be even better.

I look forward to the day that our church approaches history using the Community of Christ (aka RLDS) model:

http://www.cofchrist.org/OurFaith/history.asp

[scottie]

You are cherry-picking by picking BKP as your example. I have to believe he represents the extreme viewpoint among the brethren. I don't see that talk quoted or the topic repeated by any church leaders since that time. I think that is a sign of hope. Of course, a repudiation would be even better.

I look forward to the day that our church approaches history using the Community of Christ (aka RLDS) model:

http://www.cofchrist.org/OurFaith/history.asp

That's a good find JL. For those too lazy to go to the link...

Church History Principles

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation. As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mission. In our faith story, we see clearly God’s Spirit giving this faith community tools, insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people with a shared memory of their past, and an informed understanding of its meaning, are better prepared to chart their way into the future.

2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The foundation and continuing source for our faith is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Studying history is not about proving or disproving mystical, spiritual, or revelatory experiences that birth or transform religious movements. Sound history informs faith, and healthy faith leads to insights about history. Theology and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, must play an important role in discovering the enduring meaning of such events as well as the deeper truths found in them. Our understanding of our history affects our faith and beliefs. However, our past does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were historically.

3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship. Studying history involves related fields. Historians use academic research to get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret those facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it affected events. Historians try to understand patterns of meaning to interpret what the past means for our future. This process should avoid “presentism,” or interpreting the past based on a current worldview and culture instead of the culture of the time.

4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.

5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories of great faith and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective and culture. Historians try not to judge—instead, they try to understand by learning as much as possible about the context and the meaning of those words and actions at the time. The result is empathy instead of judgment. Our scriptures are consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses imperfect people for needed ministry and leadership.

6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history. It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.

7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians should be free to draw their own conclusions after thorough consideration of evidence. Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the church is learning how to accept and responsibly interpret all of its history. This includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective, while emphasizing the parts of our history that continue to play a role in guiding the church’s identity and mission today.

8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective. Diverse viewpoints bring richness to our understanding of God’s movement in our sacred story. Of course, historians will come to different conclusions as they study. Therefore, it is important for us to create and maintain a respectful culture that allows different points of view on history. Our conversation about history should be polite and focused on trying to understand others’ views. Most important, we should remain focused on what matters most for the message and mission of the church in this time.

9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts and minds centered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s Word alive in human history, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of our faith and the focus of the church’s mission and message.

October 1, 2008

[Jarid in Cedar]

You are cherry-picking by picking BKP as your example. I have to believe he represents the extreme viewpoint among the brethren. I don't see that talk quoted or the topic repeated by any church leaders since that time. I think that is a sign of hope. Of course, a repudiation would be even better.

I look forward to the day that our church approaches history using the Community of Christ (aka RLDS) model:

http://www.cofchrist.org/OurFaith/history.asp

JL that is a great link. If that was to be read over the pulpit at GC, the walls may fall in, but you would likely see a migration of many people back to the church.