NOM

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... story.html

I'm looking forward to this. Yet already agonizing it as well.

The plan is to publish the volumes at the rate of one per year from 2018 to 2021.

“At the same time these volumes are released in print they will be available online at no cost,” the Church Historian said. “They will be published in an inexpensive paperback format, as we are desirous that as many Church members as possible read them. They have been carefully researched and contain many stories of faith previously unknown to most Latter-day Saints.”

Elder Snow said the volumes will be “transparent, honest and faithful,” with controversial aspects of Church history covered in the context of the entire story.

Well bring it on!!!!

The fact that this "history" has to be told in the form of a narrative after the style of "James Michener" means they're not going to give you the facts and let you make up your own mind.

Get ready for the LDS spin doctors. Every controversial issue will be turned into a "faith promoting" story.

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:14 pm The fact that this "history" has to be told in the form of a narrative after the style of "James Michener" means they're not going to give you the facts and let you make up your own mind.

Get ready for the LDS spin doctors. Every controversial issue will be turned into a "faith promoting" story.

Yep. Let's talk about what they won't say: it was wrong for Joseph Smith to treat women the way he did. There's strong evidence he was a con man. The Book of Abraham provides irrefutable evidence he didn't translate ancient scripture in the way he did. Etc. and etc.

Everything will be spun so that the average, uninformed member only sees part of the story. I will take back my words if they are completely open and candid, but they won't be. They can't be without losing members.

They have been carefully researched and contain many stories of faith previously unknown to most Latter-day Saints.”

Elder Snow said the volumes will be “transparent, honest and faithful,” with controversial aspects of Church history covered in the context of the entire story.

The problem is that, when it comes to telling genuine church history, fully "honest and transparent" doesn't leave much room for "faithful." Sounds like will be following the Boyd K. Packer model and emphasizing the useful history. Of course, they're stuck with the things they've admitted in the essays, so I suspect we'll see some of that but nothing new.

You know you might consider suspending judgements until you see the product. I am almost as skeptical as the next guy but most would conceded that the JS papers project and things like the essay on blacks and the priesthood ( which in my view threw all of the presidents of the the church from BY up to Kimball under the bus ) may justify not rushing to judgement.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:23 am The problem is that, when it comes to telling genuine church history, fully "honest and transparent" doesn't leave much room for "faithful." Sounds like will be following the Boyd K. Packer model and emphasizing the useful history. Of course, they're stuck with the things they've admitted in the essays, so I suspect we'll see some of that but nothing new.

I suppose they can have Richard Bushman and Tyrell Givens apply a faithful telling of polygamy, translations, and revelations for the more difficult parts. I actually enjoyed "Rough Stone Rolling" and can easily see how it could preserve the basic narrative of LDS correlated history. A lot of the parts bothered me by how certain issues were not dealt with as much detail as I wanted. But it would have been enough for someone wanting to preserve a Sunday School based explanation of LDS history and doctrine.

They will produce 4 volumes. Early Church, relocating to Utah, Early Utah, Modern church - essentially.

I think the statement "it's been nearly 90 years since BH Roberts did the last comprehensive report of church history" is a bit misleading, maybe I'm just cynical.

This is a response to people leaving over church history. It seems a common vein of the disaffected is not merely 1 or 2 problems but ALL the problems. The problems of JS, the problems of BY and polygamy, the problems of WoW/racism/Native Americans/and the modern problems of priesthood discrimination and 'modern revelation'.

The CES letter at other decent documents (letter to my wife, etc) does a good job at outlining the problems in a rather concise manner. People realize the problems weren't just in the beginning but throughout the entire church existence. FAIR/FARMS have responded to the critics with lengthy apologetics. Where the CES Letter is 90 pages, if we collectively amassed the responses by FAIR regarding what is mentioned in the CES Letter, it would be much much longer than 90 pages.

The church publishing a 4 volume report on its history is the same type of response. Regurgitating all the sticky points with lots of info to drown out the problem and give itself credibility through sheer mass of words. The CES Letter mounts a precision offensive in 90 pages. The church calls in the legion of troops with a brute force defence of 1000+ pages.

The timing is coordinated to to 200th anniversary of the first vision. Interesting

There was a time I would have devoured these books and collected hard backed special editions. Now I don't even think adderall and promises of steamy sex could motivate me. I never thought I'd say it, but I'm just not interested anymore. Maybe I've been disappointed too often, like when I got hyped up for the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church Sunday School series.

What could be driving my disinterest is that the church obviously has a bias and an agenda. It's like reading an autobiography. There may be some cool nuggets in there you didn't know about, but you have to take some of the claims with a grain of salt.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:31 pm There was a time I would have devoured these books and collected hard backed special editions. Now I don't even think adderall and promises of steamy sex could motivate me. I never thought I'd say it, but I'm just not interested anymore. Maybe I've been disappointed too often, like when I got hyped up for the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church Sunday School series.

What could be driving my disinterest is that the church obviously has a bias and an agenda. It's like reading an autobiography. There may be some cool nuggets in there you didn't know about, but you have to take some of the claims with a grain of salt.

I am on the same page as you are. I just don't care at this point. I think they will spin it, forcing it into a "faithful" perspective.

Since they say they will tell the whole history,...how about telling how JFS cut a page out of the JS journal and hid it for years because he didn't like it and felt, to protect the narrative, it needed to be hidden?

Lets face it folks....speaking with a LOUD opinion, I don't think they will tell the whole truth; they will leave out different parts that may NOT look perfect. They are, after all, under covenant to NOT speak evil of the Lord's anointed. That means they will NOT admit error, unless there is massive pressure--and even then they will slant the lines. This is systemic--the GAs have no choice lest they upset the whole apple cart.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:23 am

They have been carefully researched and contain many stories of faith previously unknown to most Latter-day Saints.”

Elder Snow said the volumes will be “transparent, honest and faithful,” with controversial aspects of Church history covered in the context of the entire story.

The problem is that, when it comes to telling genuine church history, fully "honest and transparent" doesn't leave much room for "faithful." Sounds like will be following the Boyd K. Packer model and emphasizing the useful history. Of course, they're stuck with the things they've admitted in the essays, so I suspect we'll see some of that but nothing new.

We have a pretty decent example in "The Essays" of what the church considers to be "transparent and honest".

If you consider "Carefully Worded Denials" to be honest, well... That's what we have to look forward to.

Like others have said, I personally have no interest. I'll let other folks in the DAMU read them and give me the cliff-notes.

asa wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:37 am You know you might consider suspending judgements until you see the product. I am almost as skeptical as the next guy but most would conceded that the JS papers project and things like the essay on blacks and the priesthood ( which in my view threw all of the presidents of the the church from BY up to Kimball under the bus ) may justify not rushing to judgement.

I agree with waiting to see what they actually say. I'm not too optimistic, but I'm hopeful. At the same time, I doubt I'll read them or even look for them.

This makes me think of books such as The Story of the Latter-day Saints and Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, which were lauded at first but which fell out of favor when LDS leaders discovered some of the topics that they covered.

This is a little different in that they are explicitly mentioning that they will include controversial things, so it won't come as a surprise to the leadership later.

I'm still surprised that the essays exist and are being promoted the way they are. (They are even in the Gospel Library application now.) Even if these books have the same level of bias as the essays, they should be interesting and may even lead to fun discussions if anyone I know other than me bothers to read them.

Maybe they should just publish the 15-volume Leonard Arrington church history that they already paid for before they freaked out upon realizing that it contained some actual church history. Or did they burn they press scatter the type?

Elder Snow said the volumes will be “transparent, honest and faithful,” with controversial aspects of Church history covered in the context of the entire story.

This has the ring of a carefully worded . . . something. I've become very cynical, but in speaking of Mormon history "transparent" and "honest" hardly seem compatible with "faithful." I'm curious to see what that will look like.

In 1972, Arrington and other historians in the department were transferred to Brigham Young University, where they comprised the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute of Church History. The reunification of the institute with the Church History Department occurred in 2005...

He fails to mention that (as Hagoth points out above) Arrington was working on a very ambitious history of the church that was squelched because it was too honest and transparent. Also not mentioned is that his move to BYU was actually a demotion and a banishment.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:41 am Maybe they should just publish the 15-volume Leonard Arrington church history that they already paid for before they freaked out upon realizing that it contained some actual church history.

Exactly. Why are they not naming the authors for these volumes (that I can see), writing them at a teenage reading level (9th-10th graders...), and telling it as a story rather than an actual, documented history? Are they writing these for the youth to read so they can keep them in the church? Those are my questions.

I'll reserve judgement until I read at least reviews on the first volume (or read parts of it online for free). Let's see how honest they are regarding how Joseph lived polygamy (ages of the women and teens he married as well as the fact that many of them were already married). That will be what I'm looking at right off which will reveal how transparent these new histories truly are.

If they push for members to read these, I'll be suspect. They have not done this with the essays so far and I'd have to wonder why they're encouraging members to read these new histories but almost hiding the essays. Many local leaders still haven't read them and some don't seem to even know they exist.

Other faithful church histories have accounts of Adam and his dispensation. It might be interesting to see how the church in ancient days will be addressed.