This is why I am anxious that the proposed volumes of Church history is really the true history and not mingled with the philosophies of well meaning historians giving their own opinions, and that this can only be detected if we have footnoted and sourced information.

Northern Virginia, you say that I should be ashamed for believing that it was the Lord’s will that the descendants of Cain be barred from holding the priesthood, and imply that Brigham Young made a mistake because he was racist. Well let me ask you some questions, Did Abraham make a mistake when he recorded that the Pharaoh of Egypt who would fain claim the priesthood because of his lineage from Ham and that he was of the lineage to whom the priesthood was barred.. Did Moses make a mistake by saying that following the golden calf incident he declared that it was the Lord’s will that only the tribe of Levi could hold priesthood, and not the other 11 tribes. Again was Moses showing prejudice when he many times said that the house of Israel should not marry into the Canaanite race. Was the Lord wrong for saying that females could not be ordained to the priesthood. I see no evidence in scripture that the ban placed on Cain and his descendants was ever lifted, until the time came in 1978 when the One who imposed the ban revealed to His anointed leader President Spencer W Kimball that the time had finally arrived that the ban the He imposed was now lifted. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other leaders said that the time would come when the priesthood ban would be lifted but it was not in their time. Surely the priesthood that we hold today is the Lord’ priesthood and it is up to His will who and who should not hold it. Following the announcement that the priesthood ban was lifted Elder Bruce R McConkie advised that we should forget everything which had been said in the past should be disregarded concerning the ban. Some have taken his words quoted in the Priesthood topic as proof that the ban was a mistake. A careful reading of the topic makes clear that the Lord had never revealed the REASONS for the ban being imposed not that the ban itself was wrong. Sometime in the future we may have to stand before President Brigham Young and at that time I wonder who will be the one who is ashamed.

That said I also think the main reason we have so little information about the next life or theology is precisely because it’s really not motivational. That is there’s little functional reason for God to give us that information. Much of our knowledge of the next life is, I think, to explain problematic issues like judgment in a fashion that is important for our behavior. So the degrees of glory, to the degree much is said about them, is primarily to explain that our works matter and God puts us in a place relative to our character as revealed by our behavior.

With regards to history, I actually think most of it doesn’t matter too much. The parts that matter the most are things that people feel betrayal over if they don’t hear. Things like polygamy in Nauvoo, seer stones other than the Urim & Thummim brought by the angel, treasure seeking by Joseph, etc. So I think there are very functional reasons to discuss those in Sunday School but from a faithful perspective.

As you mentioned, many teachers won’t feel very comfortable teaching this. My experience is that no one has brought up anything listed in the Gospel Topics essays in Gospel Doctrine. I would, but the conversation has never really allowed for me to bring it up in an organic way, and I feel like I would be lobbing hand grenades if I did. I’d love to hear the experiences of others in doing so.

I’d second what Old Man said as well. To the point, while the First Presidency approval doesn’t guarantee it’s without error it does mean it carries a lot of weight. People are probably going over this very carefully.

As I have said on several posts if we are being asked to accept the new 4 volume history as true history we need to be able to check the sources of the information so that we can be assured we are not accepting the opinions of those who have ulterior motives. Have I now made my position clear enough.?

Again though, I’m still not quite sure what your point is. It seems to me you want things to be fixed and official in a strong sense of ‘TRUE DOCTRINE’ whereas the scriptures and lessons we have don’t pretend to be that in every detail. The four gospels for instance are different, with different focuses, and some contradictions. We’re not inerrant with scripture. It’s good enough for communicating God’s message. So it’s not clear to me what exactly you’re really objecting to.

Northern Virginia for instance talks about the four written accounts of the First Vision, The implication from those opposed to the Church quote this and imply that if Joseph had experienced what he claims then he should have given the same story each time. Why do we need to examine these four accounts when the simple information is that he was visited by Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and told that he was to be instrumental in the restoration of the gospel to the earth. By the way the apostle Paul gave three different versions of his vision, are we to apply the same questioning of the validity of his prophetic calling also ?

As far as the Gospel Topics are concerned these, as I understand it, were composed by historians who give their opinions of the topics under discussion. Should they be taken as the official doctrine of the Church? I also question why there has to be so much comment again by historians in the Joseph Smith Papers Project. I thought we were to see everything Joseph Smith wrote or cause to be written why do we have to be influenced by other peoples opinions

Perhaps you would like to give your own response to JimJiminy’s report that at least one member of the Twelve favors a candid and historically accurate presentation of LDS history that does not avoid controversial topics that have been omitted in the past, and his additional report that LDS leaders might be pursuing a strategy of third-world growth, sort of putting us first-worlders in a holding pattern. These certainly seem like interesting ideas worth discussing.