Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
'''Faith-promoting history''' is a commonly used term to describe [[history]] that tends to ignore more controversial aspects of the history of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]].
At worst, it could be argued that Church members may not be given the chance to evaluate their religious beliefs objectively, if they tend to rely on historical records for their [[testimony]] of the truthfullness of the LDS Church. For example, if a [[Latter Day Saint]] has based his or her testimony on reading [[Joseph Smith]]'s history in the [[Pearl of Great Price]], but never read a critical analysis of the events that are described in that book, they will tend to believe the version presented to them by Joseph Smith.
[[Latter Day Saint]] critics of faith-promoting history would argue that without access to all the facts of LDS history, a Church member is basing his or her faith on an incomplete, or even inaccurate, record of events. They believe that learning a complete history of the Church is not a threat to a person's faith, because they believe that the controversial facts can be explained and defended. From their point of view, the Church has nothing to hide.
Anti-Mormon critics would argue that without access to those controversial facts, [[Latter Day Saints]] will not be given the opportunity to re-evaluate their beliefs. However, anti-mormon historians are often guilty of presenting controversial facts out of context to influence [[Latter Day Saints]] to question their beliefs.
Defenders of faith-promoting history argue that it is necessary for people to be protected from controversial facts, because it could endanger their [[testimony]] of the Church's truthfullness...their belief being that the LDS Church's claims are true despite any controversies about historical events.
An example of this is shown in quotes by Dallin H. Oaks:
"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. . . . Evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As President George F. Richards of the Council of the Twelve said in a conference address in April 1947: 'When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause. (CR April 1947, p. 24)" (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators' Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.)
"Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of the official Church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has any responsibility to present both sides." (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators' Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.)
More recently, some [[General Authorities]] have encouraged the [[Latter Day Saints]] to study all subjects, including history, freely. They do, however, discourage members from reading any [anti-mormon] literature, though the definition of [anti-mormon] is vague, and may include anything that is not "faith promoting".
Response to historians by Church authorities has been mixed.
For example, LDS historian [[Grant H. Palmer]], who wrote what he claimed was an objective history in his [[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]] was [[disfellowshipped]] in 2004.
On the other hand, [[Richard Bushman]]'s biography of Joseph Smith, titled [[Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling]] has been praised as a well-balanced book. This is because it doesn't attempt to cover up the more controversial events surrounding Smith, while still arguing that he was indeed a true prophet.
It is worth mentioning that most of these controversial facts can be found in official Church resources, such as the [[Journal of Discourses]] or other historical documents. Although the average Latter Day Saint will not have these facts taught to them in their lesson manuals or by their teachers, they can discover them by doing independent research.
However, critics of faith-promoting history argue that such information should be either taught or made more easily accessible to the average reader, whether in official Church manuals or in books such as [[Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling]].
Some see Bushman's book as the start of a new trend of [[innoculation]] in the LDS Church...to reveal such facts to its members gradually, thus preventing them from discovering it first on the [[Internet]] on [[anti-mormon]] websites, which is where such information is most readily available. In theory, if the average [[Latter Day Saint]] is exposed to unsettling facts with an apologetic tone, they will be less likely to question the truth of the LDS Church when they come across the information from other sources. It is not known if there is such a movement organized by the Church leadership, or if this trend is just a pro-active attempt by LDS scholars to counter the [[anti-mormon]] threat.
In any case, if such a trend exists, it remains to be seen if it will help the Church prevent members from losing their testimonies when exposed to material that is not faith-promoting.
[[Category: Latter Day Saint history]]
| |||