You can not write history as it really took place. All who experienced it do not write down their recollections and the few that do, the result of personal interpretations to submit stories differ.
Within communities and organizations fill historiography a deeper meaning. Yesterday's events are presented in a way that serves contemporary needs. The underlying is that the Community is true and legitimate. I was made strong by the Swedish history (Karl XII and G II A) when I was a little kid. Nothing was mentioned then that Charles XII was the first European king who engaged in ethnic cleansing.
The story is written by people today based on our performance framework and our moral beliefs. These are also the two frames that set limits on what should be included.
Examples of behavior that such a history with it.
1) Suppression of circumstances can upset the common cohesion.
2) Aversion to make known, but delicate, circumstances generally known.
3) A strong community creates a social pressure (implied as pronounced) to write a different story.
4) Historical events are selected, presented and conveyed rather than expressed "objectively".
The story is written, because of the above, as the literature describes as "The Theory of Historical Consciousness".
A) Some historical events strongly emphasized while others "disappear".
B) There arises a silent "agreement" about the official story.
C) Different types of sanctions available against those who question the Common Framework. While arises a system of rewards to those who remain within the framework and through their actions reinforces it.
D) history writing fills mainly function to serve the interests of the Community for the day.
E) The historic Framework defines many times of what is left out, not what should be included.
F) A person may belong to multiple communities simultaneously. One can, for example, belong to the LDS while being gay. It occurs when a tear which would seem to affect one or the other community. Equality and discomfort for polygamy is the second example of the friction that leads to conflicts morally charged.
When a person for any reason come into conflict with their community, they can often drastic expressions. Often it starts with a moral conflict. One question the foundation of the former Community and they often go far to try to influence / disturb. Breakup becomes intense. Common in LDS instances is that in a very short time reading intensively (often on the Internet) and makes rebellion. But sometimes stops it there. Mormon Church must be torn down and the family / friends must be saved. Disclosure of the Church is therefore under a bang.
On the Internet there are plenty of negative anti-Mormon pages flying the "objectivity" of the flag. From these forums retrieves insurgent many times disjointed examples and quotes that creates a legitimacy to the decision to leave the church. It is followed remarkably often a need to tell / legitimize his decision for family / friends. It brings with it a behavior that is often seen on the example facebook.
- Instead of trying to understand the history of the Church use selected parts of it, torn from their context, as weapons against members of proving that the Church is not true. "Truth in party" is more important than "the whole truth".
- The Mormon Church is accused of withholding historical material, as if it came would prove that the church is not true. They interpret because all the Church's actions as blackout, fraud and conspiracy.
- They have a black and white image where Church leaders and scholars are seen as the bad guys while attacking the Church is seen as good.
- They say that there is no need for a fair and reflective historiography since the Mormon Church is still not true. They are also reluctant to take on such perspective when it is seen as a defense of the church. They have no consistent interest in allowing themselves to be influenced by the new solid negative perception.
The above is too boring with him that it is often useless to argue with them. The atmosphere becomes spiteful and I would directly advise against trying to "reverse" the question back to the faith. They are not allowed to go astray, but sheep do not want to belong to the herd. They choose to leave it.
Church's action is therefore even after the divorce object of their intense attention and criticism while felletandet performs the function of a constant confirmation of the correctness of their own decision to leave. This can apply to the black and prdm. The shopping mall. Polygamy. The publication of the essays are met with words like "too small", "too late", "too biased" etc. It is never possible to satisfy the critics. It's pointless.
All we can do is to show patience and love, but also to set limits. Do not just listen without arguing it might as well be.
Thinking of Jeremiah 37: 11-15. Jeremiah has warned and called upon the covenant people to repent and thereby made himself unpopular.
Chaldeans besieging Jerusalem, and Jeremiah decide to consolidate and save his home in the land of Benjamin. When he must leave Jerusalem arrested him at the gate. He wrongly accused of wanting to adhere to the Chaldean enemy. The people do not believe in the right explanation. Jeremiah scourged and incarcerated. The only part of the truth (he's trying to leave Jerusalem), but they forget the important subject (fortified Benjamin) and end up in the wrong conclusion. Nevertheless, they are convinced that to know the exact truth.
It's just exactly the same as happens now. Church leaders are unpopular, and their motives questioned. As Joseph. Critics believe they have 'truth', but has in fact only a part of it. Joseph church and current leaders will experience the same reproach, that Jeremiah in his time. The story goes back.
Then there are the sincere doubter. These can in principle be reasoned with because they are open to understanding. There is a will in them. The talks will be constructive for all involved.
Guest Columnist: Observers