What if the Church reveals all its secrets ??

Bluntly? Won’t happen. It’s an impossible scenario.

1) If critics were involved in such a thing with any religion, it would be a fiasco. There is no way any kind of productive consensus could be reached. The most faithful and the most critical simply see things too differently for that to happen, and it has NOTHING to do with honesty, in most cases.

2) There is no objective “truth” known about lots of things from history, much less religious history. (If you don’t believe that, watch MSNBC and Fox News for about 5 minutes. We can’t agree on what happened yesterday and why, much less about years, decades and centuries ago.)

3) The Church already is doing a LOT to try to do much of what you mentioned. The Joseph Smith Papers project, the new explanations on lds.org, the future release of the Council of Fifty notes, etc. all are being undertaken with the express purpose of putting everything out there for members – since one interpretation or another is out there and accessible somewhere already.

4) You also might ask, “What would happen if all of the critics of the Church revamped their materials to be more charitable in the way they discuss the LDS Church?” It wouldn’t make a bit of difference to most people – and it’s not going to happen.

I think the only major difference would be the type of person who would leave. Honestly, I think most of the people who would leave if they knew more would be the most conservative, orthodox members (the ones at the extreme end), since their views would be the ones that would be challenged the most. I want their views to change, but I don’t want it to be forced all at once. I want them to have a little adjustment time, since I don’t want people to have to go through a comprehensive faith crisis all at once. I’d rather have it be an accelerated faith transition.

I agree with both Ray and SD – it won’t happen because it’s impossible and even if it did we already see evidence that it wouldn’t have a major effect. I don’t know anyone who has left the church over the Joseph Smith papers or the essays, although I am sure there are a few who have. I think those few already knew and were on the way out anyway.

Yes, absolutely, the next step is to translate everything into all the languages available on lds.org.

Also, I know you said it was an impossible scenario. I just wanted to highlight why it is, for multiple reasons that aren’t the “fault” of the Church.

The use of the word “secrets” also slants the discussion immediately to a negative view – implying, even if it wasn’t meant that way, that the Church’s intent is nefarious to some degree and that its “critics” are correct and only would help fix things. Again, that might not be what you meant, but it’s the implication of the phrasing – and, in this case, it simply is inaccurate. When grouping so broadly (the Church and its critics), neither is objective and accurate – and, at the extremes, neither is more objective or accurate than the other.

Also, just fwiw, I don’t deal much with contemplating impossible scenarios – simply because they are impossible and, therefore, nothing productive comes from them. If the question was a bit different, my response would be different. For example:

What could the LDS Church continue to do to educate its members on the most accurate historical view possible right now, realizing that it has to present a “faithful” view and that there is nothing wrong with that. So, what would be faithful, charitable to those in the past and as accurate as possible?

That is a different question.

Actually I see the Race and the Priesthood essay as mostly positive. From discussions I have read here and elsewhere I understand different people get different things out of it. I get:

1. Racism was not practiced in the earliest days of the church

2. Sometime during the Young administration the priesthood ban went into effect

3. In subsequent decades many ideas were postulated about the reason for the ban

4. All of those suppositions and speculations in #3 are incorrect and not doctrine

5. Racism in all forms is wrong and the church will not practice any form of racism in the future

6. The gospel of Christ is open and fully available to all righteous people

The program is organized by both the Church and critics in order to be equanimous.

Hehe. That’s not going to happen even in an imaginary world because even that has to be grounded in some reality. Putting the connotations of the word “secrets” aside… here’s my reason:

The thing about critics, well the thing about me when I’ve truly had my nose to the grindstone as a critic, is that “all” secrets are never revealed, it’s always “some” secrets that are revealed. In other words a critic (or perhaps conspiracist since we are dealing with secrets ) on the far end of the spectrum will always think there are more secrets. That the secrets the church revealed was just the tip of some imaginary iceberg, even if the church truly did put all the cards on the table. The argument would just shift to something else to keep the pressure on the church. That’s the deep end of criticism for you.

As far as members. That’s where I toss my hands up and say “who knows.” This discussion reminded me of the following thread:

Floods Are as Dangerous as Famines

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667

It’s a bit of a short thread, and in re-reading it I thought… aren’t all the secrets, so to speak, already out there for the finding? So what we’re talking about is the church taking the lead on dissecting the letter to the CES director (as an example) in the context of SS or some other environment.

Personally I wish we talked a whole lot less about church history during sabbath meetings, but that’s a different discussion.

This discussion reminded me of the following thread:

Floods Are as Dangerous as Famines

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667

It’s a bit of a short thread, and in re-reading it I thought… aren’t all the secrets, so to speak, already out there for the finding? So what we’re talking about is the church taking the lead on dissecting the letter to the CES director (as an example) in the context of SS or some other environment.

What you say, allow me torespond also to darkjedi.

Sometimes it is better to avoid the floods. Sometimes you can not prevent it from disclosing information. I’ll explain: If you say in ‘essay “Race and Priesthood”:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.

it is your duty to make known this to all members of the Church, especially to the black members. If you were told all your life that you have been less valiant in pre-existence, you will have the right to know that is not true? As long as this thing will not be done, this is kind of a secret. I know the truth, you know the truth, but most of the members know what? “incorrect information”. Why this information is not openly disclosed? No one can say that such an important thing can be inserted only in the Gospel Topic. Is there fear of the flood effect? I hope not. What is more important? We’re not talking about doctrines. We’re talking about people. We’re talking about their self-esteem, what they believe to be, and we believe they are. My doubt is that the essay “Race and priesthood” say something difficult to accept. I think the essay is telling the truth, and we should not be afraid of the truth.

We must fear the Lord, not man.

Depending on the outcome, I could see all kinds of results for the membership.

I think a good starting point is the essay: “first vision accounts”. Maybe the critics will not agree, but the essay also speaks of their point of view:

The variety and number of accounts of the First Vision have led some critics to question whether Joseph Smith’s descriptions match the reality of his experience. Two arguments are frequently made against his credibility: the first questions Joseph Smith’s memory of the events; the second questions whether he embellished elements of the story over time. etc…

I think it is a good example of good practice. The Church explains:

1. the facts (the different accounts)

2. his point of view in relation to the facts

3. the point of view of some critics

It’s a good outcome. If this is used for so many other questions, it would be instructive.

p.s. I wonder, as a not english speaking member, why this part of the essay has not been translated into other languages:

Arguments Regarding the Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision

The variety and number of accounts of the First Vision have led some critics to question whether Joseph Smith’s descriptions match the reality of his experience. Two arguments are frequently made against his credibility: the first questions Joseph Smith’s memory of the events; the second questions whether he embellished elements of the story over time.

Memory. One argument regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision alleges that historical evidence does not support Joseph Smith’s description of religious revival in Palmyra, New York, and its vicinity in 1820. Some argue that this undermines both Joseph’s claim of unusual religious fervor and the account of the vision itself.

Documentary evidence, however, supports Joseph Smith’s statements regarding the revivals. The region where he lived became famous for its religious fervor and was unquestionably one of the hotbeds of religious revivals. Historians refer to the region as “the burned-over district” because preachers wore out the land holding camp revivals and seeking converts during the early 1800s.6 In June 1818, for example, a Methodist camp meeting took place in Palmyra, and the following summer, Methodists assembled again at Vienna (now Phelps), New York, 15 miles from the Smith family farm. The journals of an itinerant Methodist preacher document much religious excitement in Joseph’s geographic area in 1819 and 1820. They report that Reverend George Lane, a revivalist Methodist minister, was in that region in both years, speaking “on Gods method in bringing about Reformations.”7 This historical evidence is consistent with Joseph’s description. He said that the unusual religious excitement in his district or region “commenced with the Methodists.” Indeed, Joseph stated that he became “somewhat partial” to Methodism.8

Embellishment. The second argument frequently made regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is that he embellished his story over time. This argument focuses on two details: the number and identity of the heavenly beings Joseph Smith stated that he saw. Joseph’s First Vision accounts describe the heavenly beings with greater detail over time. The 1832 account says, “The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” His 1838 account states, “I saw two Personages,” one of whom introduced the other as “My Beloved Son.” As a result, critics have argued that Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being—“the Lord”—and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son.9

There are other, more consistent ways of seeing the evidence. A basic harmony in the narrative across time must be acknowledged at the outset: three of the four accounts clearly state that two personages appeared to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. The outlier is Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, which can be read to refer to one or two personages. If read to refer to one heavenly being, it would likely be to the personage who forgave his sins. According to later accounts, the first divine personage told Joseph Smith to “hear” the second, Jesus Christ, who then delivered the main message, which included the message of forgiveness.10 Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, then, may have concentrated on Jesus Christ, the bearer of forgiveness.

Another way of reading the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith referred to two beings, both of whom he called “Lord.” The embellishment argument hinges on the assumption that the 1832 account describes the appearance of only one divine being. But the 1832 account does not say that only one being appeared. Note that the two references to “Lord” are separated in time: first “the Lord” opens the heavens; then Joseph Smith sees “the Lord.” This reading of the account is consistent with Joseph’s 1835 account, which has one personage appearing first, followed by another soon afterwards. The 1832 account, then, can reasonably be read to mean that Joseph Smith saw one being who then revealed another and that he referred to both of them as “the Lord”: “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.”11

Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience. In part, the differences between the 1832 account and the later accounts may have something to do with the differences between the written and the spoken word. The 1832 account represents the first time Joseph Smith attempted to write down his history. That same year, he wrote a friend that he felt imprisoned by “paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language.” He called the written word a “little narrow prison.”12 The expansiveness of the later accounts is more easily understood and even expected when we recognize that they were likely dictated accounts—an, easy, comfortable medium for Joseph Smith and one that allowed the words to flow more easily.

Conclusion

Joseph Smith testified repeatedly that he experienced a remarkable vision of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Neither the truth of the First Vision nor the arguments against it can be proven by historical research alone. Knowing the truth of Joseph Smith’s testimony requires each earnest seeker of truth to study the record and then exercise sufficient faith in Christ to ask God in sincere, humble prayer whether the record is true. If the seeker asks with the real intent to act upon the answer revealed by the Holy Ghost, the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s vision will be manifest. In this way, every person can know that Joseph Smith spoke honestly when he declared, “I had seen a vision, I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.”13

What is the difference between me and a English mother language member? Quiet. There is no difference. Simply 95% of people who need this type of feedback is English speaking. It makes no sense to give the meat to those who can not eat it.

I was just reading in American Grace today….”

I read in a your post, in another forum, a list of books that have helped me a lot (Tolle, Don Miguel Ruiz, etc …). Do you have another post where you listed other good books that you read? thanks

I agree with you Ralph, I do believe it is for us to share what we know, and I do every opportunity I get. Just last week I sent links to each of the essays to my missionary son who was unaware of them because he’s been in the mission field. I bring them up in conversation with members regularly. Of all the essays, I talk about the Race and the Priesthood most often. I happen to live in an area where there is little racial diversity and no Black members in our ward. My two sons are the only Mormons in their high school and likewise there are only two Black students there. I hope to use the opportunities afforded me in my new calling to call more attention to the essays, and I do wish the GAs would be more opportunistic as well.