Do you think this approach to Church History is wise?

I think it is hard to say on this one. I like getting alternate views, especially objective views when possible. I’ve read a bit about this before and there is compelling evidence for both sides of the argument. In the end, I would say that, yes, it is wise to read other sources for Church History, but only if the sources can be verified historically. Ours and theirs alike.

What I’m asking is whether this is a wise approach for A CHURCH to take on its own history.

Wow, I’m impressed with their approach.

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation.

2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs.

3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship.

4. The study of church history is a continuing journey.

5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less.

6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation.

7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of church history.

8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of history.

9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The idealist in me says this approach is very wise because it is honest and open and invites inquisitive minds like mine to feel free to seek truth.

The pragmatist in me realizes this can be very problematic, because not all truth is helpful. Some people will continue digging up things in the past and put their own meaning to things (re-write history), instead of seeing any good now or the future potential. IOW, getting caught too much in the past to validate things can overpower the desire to get spiritual confirmation in the present day, despite what happened in the past.

Overall, I say it is a wise thing for any church to encourage this. However, they will have to live with the outcomes, whatever they may be. There just needs to be the balance of learning from our past, but applying principles to the present day.

The Community of Christ leadership is open to a flexible account of the book of Mormon, though opinions of the rank-and-file membership vary across the spectrum..{snip}…As some suggest, “the objective of the Christian faith is not assent to propositions but Christian discipleship. If that be the case then the BOM is important for us not in giving us events to affirm as historically accurate, but rather in helping us become better disciples of the One for whom the book claims to be a ‘second witness.’

LDS Chruch authorities do not consider this revisionist solution acceptable. And it has not escaped their notice that the LDS Church is growing rapidly while the C of C is faltering. For ordinary Mormons, strong belief demands are a positive aspect of the church…{snip}…people like a church that stands for something, a church that knows what it believes.

I agree with this assessment. I remember how many individuals that felt that the C of C was selling its soul by down grading the BOM from scripture to an inspired book.

In one of the interviews Richard Bushman gave after Rough Stone Rolling, he reflects on how after all the critical acclaim, he did not give the public a JS they could follow, rally behind, and “believe in.”

What I’m asking is whether this is a wise approach for A CHURCH to take on its own history.

While this balanced approach is “just what the doctor ordered” for many here, we are not exactly representative of the wider LDS population, and I would question the wisdom of forcing such an approach upon the majority. So IMHO the answer is no.

I really admire the position of the CoC, but I don’t think it leads to growth in membership. Is that how a church should be judged, by membership numbers?

I think not — look at how small we are as a Church worldwide. I don’t think we have grown nearly as fast as say, the Pentacostals, and if what the GA’s say is true, we are the only Church with a fully divine commission, then it would follow that being the fastest growing Church, or the largest one isn’t important.

Also, if you take the LDS interpretation of history from Adam to the present, the “True” Church has been characterized by startups and then falling away and destruction, then, after a period of apostasy, another startup, varying degrees of prosperity, and then another falling away. So, negative membership growth has been part of our history since Adam — does that mean we are not a successful Church? I question that.

How do you measure success? I would say by the character of your people and the good it does for mankind.

I think mythology is important. Sometimes ideals and idealized people help us aspire to greater things ourselves. It’s not just about lying.

I understand the Church’s mission statement to be ‘bring people to Christ.’ While I agree that membership numbers do not necessarily equate with bringing souls to Christ, what other form of measurement would you propose? At least the membership numbers are a quantifiable measure that is loosely related to the size of impact the church is making towards this mission.

Survey the members annually about their overall happiness, and the benefits they feel from their Church membership. If happiness is the “object and design of our existence”, then it follows that we would be “the happiest people on earth” as one prophet admonished us. Ask the membership and come up with a gap analysis that describes the areas in which the Church is helping, and the areas in which it is hurting the membership.

Question 1: If we can establish that mythology is important for cultural identity, how much creative license can we take in creating mythology from our past?

None, God is a god of truth, and he must be worshipped in truth and life. This means we can’t, shouldn’t, ought-not sanitize our history to create myths we can all believe in.

Question 2: If established cultural mythology can be reasonably disproven (like the perpetuation of the idea that JS was planning to flee to the west before the martyrdom rather than the east towards D.C.), what is our obligation as a Church to dispel said mythology?

I think we have an obligation to dispel it to the extent we refer to it in our official publications. If we preach about the martyrdom of the prophet, then we are obligated to tell the truth. One thing that has always bothered me on this count is that I didn’t know until the PBS.org documentary that Joseph Smith was brought up on charges because he ordered the destruction of the Navoo Expositor’s printing press. Truth Restored, the official history of the Church to members, says it was “on a trumped up charge”. For me, using one’s authority as a public official to destroy the private property of a citizen warrants imprisonment. So, I’ve felt somewhat betrayed when I learned this from the PBS.org documentary, and NEVER in all my study of JS’s life through formal Church sources.

Question 3: Is there any duty to honor the cultural traditions of our father’s even if they aren’t completely historically accurate? (I know the BOM talks disparagingly about the traditions of their fathers but that always seemed to be in the context of the traditions of other people’s fathers)

I think we can pay homage to the RESULTS this belief led our fathers to effect. But we can’t sanction and perpetuate the historically inaccurate statements and still claim to be following a God of Truth. I think we can refer to these historically inaccurate myths the same way we refer to Santa Claus.

Question 4: If the Church was very aggressive in pursuit of historical truth, what would be the consequences? What would that do to growth rates? What would that do to retention rates? How might that affect multi-generational traditional believing Mormons that have built their lives (and their hope of the afterlife) on the current interpretation and perspective?

It would slow new membership growth rates. I think it would reduce inactivity rates however, as a goodly number of people get disenchanted with the history when all they hear is the sanitized version at Church. The old-timers would rationalize the news and listen to the Apologists.

Question 5: What impact (if any) would such a shift have upon the success of the mission of the Church – to bring people unto Christ?

For me, it would strengthen my resolve. When DHOakes apologized for the Mountain Meadow Massacre in the PBS.org special, I was moved, touched, and impressed with his honesty and the first real admission of guilt I’ve ever seen from an LDS leader, even though he said only “there is no doubt members of our Church were involved”, and then proceeded to express is deep regret it happened.

Honestly, if our message is true, if if we really are the “only true Church on the face of the earth”, we should not be afraid to embrace our history as a Church. If love and truth always wins in the long run, then being open about our truth shouldn’t hurt us. We should not be afraid of it. Hiding and whitewashing it only makes me personally wonder if the Church is everything it says it is, regrettably, and then I have to do mental gymnastics, or willingly suspend my intellect.

I think these are good questions.

Hawkgrrl — how do we repeat history in the Church since we never learn from it?