Yes.

Sure, but once they start refusing to believe, they're often not mormons for long...

It's not 'history', it's anti-Mormon lies.

Apparently, it's also "anti-Mormon lies" when you're even using LDS resources to confirm it. And the LDS church has done an admirable job of scrubbing their history by cleaning up and re-publishing things like the Journal of Discourses with whole quotable sections removed. How are members supposed to know what BY said about blacks? So you use a quote from the Discourses to back yourself up, and someone will pull out and check a newer edition, not find the quote, and tell you that you're telling anti-Mormon porkies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia#Damnatio_memoriae

Following the arrest and punishment of the infamous Lavrentiy Beria, the notorious head of the NKVD, in 1953 the encyclopedia—ostensibly in response to overwhelming public demand—mailed subscribers to the second edition a letter from the editor[15] instructing them to cut out and destroy the three-page article on Beria and paste in its place enclosed replacement pages expanding the adjacent articles on F. W. Bergholz (an 18th-century courtier), the Bering Sea, and Bishop Berkeley.[16][17] By April 1954, the Library of the University of California had received this “replacement.”[18] This was not the only case of political influence. According to one author, encyclopedia subscribers received missives to replace articles in the fashion of the Beria article frequently.[19] Other articles, especially biographical articles on political leaders, changed significantly to reflect the current party line. An article affected in such a fashion was the one on Nikolai Bukharin, whose descriptions went through several evolutions.[20]

When Stalin purged someone, he also airbrushed them out of official photos--especially photos that made the person look important or close to Lenin.

http://iliketowastemytime.com/2012/06/22/soviet-censorship-of-images-during-stalins-regime-5-pics

Mao, Hitler, and Kim did the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-were-erased-from-history-2013-12?r=UK&IR=T#leon-trotsky-russian-revolutionary-3

He who controls the present, controls the past. And control of the past enhances one's influence over the future.

Or so say the revisionists in the Church Office Building.

The actual documented history of the church is anti-Mormon don'tcha know?

It's not that they don't believe it, it's that they are sure there is some "holy" explanation that will surface sooner or later and they will show their great faith until then--even if it's not until they do the tap tap tap at the curtain in the CK haha.

That is my family. They do not disbelieve the history. They just think it is incomplete and the missing pieces to the puzzle will be discovered later and they will be the champions for never letting their faith falter as the rest of us succumbed to reason.


All will be explained in the hereafter. Like, for sure. Really.

yes....my wife. She hasn't even read the church essays.

you want to know it?" He said NO.

The Mormons I know don't refuse to believe their history when they find out about it but do rationalize it like Mormon apologists do.

The whole "acting as a man" thing covers a lot of Mormon History. The "mantle" is greater than "the man" loophole.

And my father-in-law thinks God has been developing his church since Smith.

Of course there are. They are "social Mormons" They remain for the sociality of the organization and perhaps the companionship. I see nothing wrong with this as it is a matter of personal choice.

is what many members believe. As long as their testimony is strong and the church is good, then its past is of no concern to them.

Oh, yes, most certainly. Blood relations.

Yes.
Unless you count the Joe Smith and Brigham Young fanfiction that the Morg calls "Church History."

The real history isn't fanfic. Gerald Lund writes that with their history. Mormons often read crap like his and think they know Mormon History.