Monthly Archives: July 2020

Some things that are true are not very useful to the Mormon church

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. Elder Boyd K Packerhttps://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng#subtitle2 Not everything that’s true is useful. Elder Dallin H Oakshttps://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary There have been many statements …

Continue reading “Some things that are true are not very useful to the Mormon church”

Q: What is your view of the received version of church history, Sterling? A: I've felt for a long time that the church has made a very serious error in tying itself to all kinds of historical claims instead of focusing its claims on the quality of life it can engender, the happiness it can bring to people, and the spiritual and moral strength it can build in its members. It has always insisted that if X, Y, and Z historical events did not occur, then the church is not true. That's a lot of nonsense. No church looks very good under a close inspection of its own history. The Catholics don't, the Protestants don't, and the Mormons don't. There's no need to pretend that our history is free of unsavory episodes--Joseph Smith's involvement in magic and all that damned nonsense--to say nothing of polygamy. There's no point in trying to cover them up. It makes more sense to focus the case for the church on something other than its historical origins. But it's not an easy thing to do. We are so steeped in historical consciousness--often historical error.
Q: What is your view of the received version of church history, Sterling?A: I've felt for a long time that the church has made a very serious error in tying itself to all kinds of historical claims instead of focusing its claims on the quality of life it can engender, the happiness it can bring to people, and the spiritual and moral strength it can build in its members. It has always insisted that if X, Y, and Z historical events did not occur, then the church is not true. That's a lot of nonsense. No church looks very good under a close inspection of its own history. The Catholics don't, the Protestants don't, and the Mormons don't. There's no need to pretend that our history is free of unsavory episodes--Joseph Smith's involvement in magic and all that damned nonsense--to say nothing of polygamy. There's no point in trying to cover them up. It makes more sense to focus the case for the church on something other than its historical origins. But it's not an easy thing to do. We are so steeped in historical consciousness--often historical error.