I wish all the Bloggenacl’ites who are bothered by this-or-that in history could share your attitude while they’re developing your perspective.

Please don’t fade back completely into lurkdom. I really like what you say and how you say it.

i do have Our Heritage. so far i’ve kept up only with what is assigned in the study guide. we are a week behind the people who post about the lessons, which is convenient because i can see what others have said before our lesson occurs.

i appreciate your concern about the spin factor. that is why i asked for recommendations here. many of the blogs have mentioned A Rough Stone Rolling for various reasons. i mentioned wanting to read it to a woman who cautioned me against it until later. she had not read it yet, but she was also concerned that a good foundation be laid before tinkering with opinion. good advice.

what’s interesting about being an adult convert is that age brings perspective in so many areas. so far i have been able to learn about issues which have caused problems for life-long mormons with nary a blink. probably this is because it isn’t shaking a long-held belief of my own. but in addition, i have seen how messy real life can be. still, there are nuggets of truth and beauty and inspiration right there in the mire. so, imperfect beings that we are, we take what is of value and make it our own.

Do you have a copy of Our Heritage: A Brief History, one of the books being used this year in the adult Sunday School class? A book like that is a great place to start, because it gives a coherent outline of church history and because it is coordinated with what you’ll be talking about every Sunday.

Our Heritage tends to focus on the episodes and personalities in church history that make easy gospel lessons, and glosses over some of the messier or more colorful (not always bad, just messier) parts of history, so eventually you’ll want to supplement the brief history with something more detailed. For this second step, I recommend either or both: Allen and Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints and/or Arrington and Bitton, The Mormon Experience. Both are written for general readers, not specialists.

From there on, it’s probably a matter of reading biographies, or histories of particular events that interest you. You can get lots of recommendations from the blogs — especially Keepa — if you have questions.

I would only caution you that Mormon history/the history of the Kingdom of God is as complex and expansive as the history of any political nation, and it’s as easy to spin, for good or bad, as secular politics are. Be careful who you go to for your history; make sure they have your best interests at heart, and if something doesn’t sound or feel right, ask trusted people for advice. I’d like to think I can be trusted for straight Mormon history, but of course you don’t really know me. You could always ask me for a post on any given topic (write to me at keepapitchinin AT aol DOT com), and the discussion that follows would give you a decent sample of generally faithful opinion.

I love history. It tells me who I am, and who my people are. History can’t prove spiritual things, of course — history can’t prove that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, for instance — but history can tell me who Joseph Smith was, and how true he was to what he claimed to have seen and heard, and the development of the church that grew from what he taught. That makes a pretty good adjunct to scripture and prayer and sermons and doctrine, in my opinion. Plus, it’s fun.

i read as much on doctrine as i thought i needed to before joining the church, and i have a smattering of history in there. but there is a great deal to be learned from how we got from there to here.

help in incorporating gospel principles into daily life is important, of course, but i tend to agree with all of you who have left comments that history is foundational.

i would love reading suggestions to supplement all that seminary i missed, keeping in mind that if it’s exhaustive and scholarly and uses words of more than one syllable, it will sit on my nightstand and generate roots.

thank you!

Oh, you’d love the manual I just found, then! It’s the 1950 Gospel Doctrine book, Thomas C. Romney, The Gospel in Action, which consists of 45 biographies.

The Preface says,

The committee feels that the Gospel Doctrine Department should emphasize the responsibility adults have to apply gospel principles to the betterment of home and community conditions. It is hoped also that the 1950 course of study will serve to call to our attention the advantage of and the necessity for immediate and continuous application of the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our everyday lives.

The course of study for this year brings to us the valuable lessons to be drawn from the dramatically eventful lives of forty-five men and women whose faith and testimonies gave them strength to fight against overwhelming odds and to triumph in righteousness. May the inspiration of their heroic examples aid us in the solution of our present-day religious and social problems.

There’s nary a prophet on the list. They’re ordinary people like Elias Hicks Blackburn, Henry Eyring, Isaac Morley, John C. Naegle, Shadrach Roundy, Edward Stevenson, David K. Udall, John Nicholson, and Joseph H. Ridges. There are only three women, alas, and two of them (Emmeline B. Wells and Clarissa Smith Williams) are already well known, but I don’t know the third, Paulina Phelps Lyman.

From a quick look-see, these appear to be straight biographies, with the “lessons to be drawn” left up to the class — there are no in-your-face, “and thus we see” sections, except for a scripture or literary quotation at the top of the lesson that might suggest the lesson the Committee had in mind. Cool.

While I appreciate the doctrinal focus of this years Gospel Doctrine lessons, I have been concerned that less of our history is being taught there than in times past. However, it appears that we are getting a little more in the PH/RS manual on Joseph Smith these two years, but still not a lot. I’m just not sure that there is enough to balance out.

[2] Anthon’s letter was to Howe, “author” of Mormonism Unveiled, the first anti-Mormon book, published in 1934.

1934 should be 1834. Was this typo in the original?

That’s probably enough for most of those who read history or went to seminary, but I wonder about newer members of the church who may not have had the benefit of years of Primary and seminary. But admittedly I’m biased toward the importance of history to understanding Mormonism. I do think older lessons are lacking in the expressed end of increasing spirituality, not just knowledge, in class members, and the newer lessons are great for the way they feature the “take it into our own lives” elements.