When Christians start demending to be called “mormon” then there I will consider your link.
Hasn't MORMON history and teachings and writings and lack of ANY evidence Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?
I'm sorry, but you lost me citing Jeff Lindsay as a credible source when he listed FARMS and FairLDS as sources, among other "faith-promoting history" sources.
My guess is that you are familiar with the term, but it is the official policy of the LDS church that the church and church historians - including academic historians at BYU and other universities - publish only historical facts about the church and its leaders that are positive, promote LDS faith, and are not likely to cause members to question their faith, or drive away converts.
As you may know, historians - LDS historians who are members of the church - are excommunicated, disenfellowshipped, or, at the very lease, have their temple recommends pulled for writing TRUE church history that is not faith-promoting.
The practice started long before LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, but he's most famous for giving the practice a name.
Here's a summary, but I'll follow this post up with some more details and links, generally to www.lds.org, www.fairlds.org, FARMS, BYU's website, etc.
When LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer implemented the LDS Church's policy of "faith-promoting history' in 1991, he specifically stated that Mormon historians should not publish or state facts about the church's history unless they promote faith. He stated his concern that new members ('seedlings in faith", i believe he called them) could be turned away if they knew all of the church's history, so that only positive facts about the LDS church should be published.
All published facts should be filtered through the historian's faith and testimony, not through academic standards. (This was not entirely new; Apostle Ezra Taft Benson had admonished LDS historians in 1976 and 1981, and perhaps on other occasions, that they shouldn't follow the tenets of their profession if it damaged the church or destroyed the faith of members, and BYU professor Louis C. Midgley gave a presentation to LDS historians in 1981 in which he said it was "depressing" to see LDS historians committed to 'objective history" instead of "acting out the role . . . of faithful Saint.")
A BYU professor gave a speech to 40 BYU history students on the conflict between academic truth as a historian and Packer's 'faith-promoting history" standard and the BYU student newspaper published an article about it.
Newsweek published an article on the conflict between LDS church leadership and LDS historians.
The BYU history professor, D. Michael Quinn, had his temple recommend pulled.
Over 50 articles quickly appeared in periodicals such as Sunstone and Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought (both of which are mentioned in the LDS Church's Encyclopedia of Mormonism as having six benefits for Mormons) on the conflict between being a historian and being an LDS historian under the 'faith-promoting' standard. BYU's journal, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies specifically adopted the faith-promoting standard.
Articles appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals on 'how to read LDS history", including how to interpret common words as used uncommonly by LDS historians applying the 'faith-promoting' standard.
The LDS began to excommunicate or disenfellowship LDS historians who published books or articles that were not 'faith-promoting', i.e., were factually accurate, but contained facts that the church felt were damaging to the church or may cause members to question their faith. I believe it was September 1993 that the September Six were all excommunicated or disenfellowshipped. D. Michael Quinn published another book on how Joseph Smith and his family had been involved with divining, astrology, and other magic, and was excommunicated.
Other LDS historians have met the same punishment for disclosing facts that the church felt were unflattering or would cause members to doubt their faith, some recently.
As a result, the LDS church's official biography of Joseph Smith lists him as having only one wife. If you read deeply into the www.lds.org official history of the church, it will list Joseph's Smith's first polygamous wife - but it does not list Fanny Alger, the wife he took before he announced the doctrine of polygamy, thereby avoiding some issues (including the fact that Smith may not have actually married Alger, and an affair isn't seemly for Smith).
The 1997 Church publication on the teachings of Brigham Young, used for the education of adults in the church, refers to Young's 'wife' singular, not his wives. It does not mention Smith's teachings on the priesthood of blacks, Adam-God, or blood atonement.
Because non-LDS historians and non-LDS writers had access to many records (Packer and Benton had closed open access to the LDS archives, and the vault of the First Presidency was closed to virtually all historians), FAIR and other apologetic groups, not recognized by the LDS church, arose. These groups engage in a policy of deny, deny, deny . . . attack, attack, attack, when it comes to unfavorable church history.
Those involved with FAIR could simply rely on their faith and retain their testimony, but they spend their time attacking those who violate the LDS policy of reporting only faith-promoting history.
Members growing up in the church have a right to their religious beliefs, but they are led by the church to believe that they are told the full history of the church when in fact they are told only the 'faith-promoting' history.
I can find the citation and quotes from the FARMS journal if necessary, but one BYU professor wrote an article stating that historians who wrote LDS history that was not faith-promoting and contained historical facts that were detrimental to the church's image, or could cause LDS members to question their beliefs or what they had been taught by the church, or keep the church from gaining new members, were engaged in 'propaganda."
We've seen the term "propaganda" used frequently on FR by former member Paragon Defender, who took this BYU professor's article to heart, and by the writers for FAIR. Any disclosure of early church history, even if true, that casts the church or Joseph Smith in a less than perfect light is deemed "propaganda."
What's interesting is that FAIR publishes a different LDS history than the LDS church. For example, FAIR recognizes Fanny Alger as Joseph Smith's first wife.
At any rate, if you read things about the LDS church that you have not been taught, or that you have been taught by FAIR or apologetic groups are untrue, what's probably going on is application of the church standard of only publishing and acknowledging 'faith-promoting" history. Church members - such as LDS professors at BYU and other institutions - are required to do the same thing, or face possible loss of temple recommend, disenfellowshipment, or excommunication. It's been done; it's still being done.
Some will say this is like the Roman Catholic Church keeping silent when it settles sexual abuse cases against priests. The difference is that the Catholic Church, when confronted, doesn't deny that those cases were filed or that the settlements took place. And the Catholic Church does not kick out of the church priests, Notre Dame professors, and others if they write academic articles that mention abuse by the priests.
If you are looking for hard-core, academic facts, as supported by normal academic standards, which would meet standard for publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then, yeah, the facts are there.
Incidentally, Packer's "faith-promoting' speech was "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." He presented it on August 22, 1981, to seminary, institute, and Brigham Young University religion instructors. It was subsequently published in Brigham Young University Studies 21 (Summer 1981), and issued as a pamphlet by the LDS Church Educational System. You may want to check page 271, where Packer says that distorting LDS church history is justified because "we are at war with the adversary."
BYU scholars agree.
David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, in their article "Advocacy and Inquiry in Mormon Historiography," Brigham Young University Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 153, defend Mormon historians of faith-promoting motivation who "leave out less-than-desirable episodes, tell only one side of the story, or are incomplete in their treatment." In support of that, on page 176, note 76, they argue "that 'suppression of evidence' is in fact an essential step in the application of a 'viable tradition' of interpretation, not, we may add, merely an editorial right to be exercised."
So if Jeff Lindsay wants me to get my facts from FARMS, or FAIR, those groups have admitted that they are not going to give you facts that could cause you to question your faith, or show the church or Joseph Smith or other church leaders in an unfavorable light.
I do not want to question your religious beliefs. However, if you want to claim that you've been given all the facts, then I respectfully submit that you're wrong.
And you'll notice I didn't say other faiths disclose all of the facts of their faith.
But I'm not aware that any of them punish members and those in academia who dare to publish factual information if it casts the church in a bad light or could cause people to question their faith because things simply aren't as clean and tidy as you've been taught.
So, no, I don't trust Jeff Lindsay. He's suggested that I use sources that have specifically stated that they publish "faith-promoting" history - which means that anything negative about LDS history, even if true, is omitted. It means that a positive spin will be placed on all historical facts, no matter how bizarre that spin must be to be positive. It means that they have agreed that certain 'previously published' items, such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, should not be republished. It means they believe that adult study guides that direct the reader NOT to go to the original source matter are appropriate.
Jeff Lindsay does not want those who study the history of the LDS church and its teaching to know the whole truth, only the approved truth.
“This is a poorly defined term, but I would say that only the activists who attack the Church in a way intended to generate misunderstanding, fear, and shock are the ones who deserve the epithet of “anti-Mormons.” Many such “Mormon bashers” feel that the end justifies the means, and use tactics that are incompatible with the truthful example of Christ.”
Great! The Flyin’ Inmans on FR want to bring understanding and clarity and truth about the false cult of Mormonism. Nice to know old Jeffry doesn’t lump us in with those antis!