Historians have usurped the prophets
With the DoM and Kimball biographies, we see an interesting phenomenon--historians giving guidance and information to church members over the most controversial aspect of Mormonism in our generation.
Why are the actual people who lived through this and made the decisions, like Gordon B. Hinckley, not willing to provide us with a similar account?
I recognize that perhaps they privately approve of these biographies, and may have even facilitated these biographies (doubtful on the latter but who knows). But why not put their own personal stamp on it?
Would the church crumple? Would testimonies be lost?
The more transparent the workings of the church and the better we know the general authorities, the more convinced we are the church is true.
Is there anyone who disagrees?
What is implied, if you don't agree?
|