But and this is an interesting but :) my examination (I also had total access to all church records) vindicated Smith more often than not. But it deviated greatly from the 'official' history. For example, the Saints weren't driven from Missouri because of Religious prosecution per se, it was because they weren't slave holders. Obviously the Church prefers religious prosecution as the cause (nothing like being persecuted to unite people) and the modern persecutors preferred polygamy. The truth never stood a chance : ) I saw stuff like that over and over again (and still do, everywhere else).
Dont get me wrong, Christian Church History stinks and there have been many wrong things done and claimed in the name of Christianity, but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why not? Saying the Christian history stinks is being extremely polite. I studied the history not from the perspective of religion but from the history of warfare and found it hard to sympathize with the "Christians".
BTW, have you ever read any of Lee Strobels books?
Nah, I haven't read a religious book in years. I prefer history, science and fiction now.
WOW!!!
But and this is an interesting but :) my examination (I also had total access to all church records) vindicated Smith more often than not. But it deviated greatly from the ‘official’ history.
- - - - - - - -
You lost me right here, sorry. I know from personal experience that there are levels of access to church records. There is NO possible way you could have access to ALL records unless you are in the first presidency.
Some records are avail to non-members, some to members only, many only to temple recommend holders, some only to descendants of members, and some only avail to GA’s, and a few only avail to the FP. Nice try though.
There were several factors involved in the exodus from MO. Slave holding was only ONE of them. Voting as a bloc was a major factor (one that does not vindicate Smith), isolation by the LDS, theft and refusal to engage in local economies were also factors. And there was religious persecution on BOTH sides, some started by the LDS themselves.
However, I will agree that there is a great deviation between the historical record and “official” LDS history.
Why not? Saying the Christian history stinks is being extremely polite. I studied the history not from the perspective of religion but from the history of warfare and found it hard to sympathize with the “Christians”.
- - - - - - - -
I would not say “extremely polite”. There are issues in Christian Church history, I do not deny that in the least. That does not make Christianity, as a belief, invalid. I know many agnostic/atheist professional historians who agree with my statement.
As a historian, I will say that studying history from only one perspective gives a VERY skewed view.
And a good historian would never confuse certain aspects of a history of any group to be representative of the whole. IOW, they would not judge Christianity based upon a history of the Crusades (or other wars Christians were involved in).
You do not throw out the babe (Christ) with the bathwater.