The Church is growing so fast...

[Pete Ahlstrom]

40 minutes ago, why me said:

Darwin had a tremendous impact on christians for that time. There is no question about it. It was a shock for them. But they recovered. However, the tremendous onslaught of attacks on christianity would have an effect. As would the hedonist philosophy that has guided the west for quite some time. And relativism also.

Now about the essays. It is rather interesting that I have books published by the church from the early 80s that have the information that are now in the church essays. It seems that people no longer read books. For example, I have the book Sacred Truths of the D&C. I read the section 132 commentary in the book and low and behold, all is in there. Emma's problem with polygamy, Hyrum encouraging Joseph to write a revelation for Emma, how polygamy revelation was known in 1831 etc. All claimed by critics that such info was hidden by the church. But not so. It is in the book that I just mentioned along with other historical facts. Likewise, Hyrum's polygamy was in his biography published by the church in 2003. But who read that book.

https://deseretbook.com/p/sacred-truths-doctrine-covenants-vol-1-leaun-g-otten-8150?variant_id=101382-ebook

https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Truths-Doctrine-Covenants-Vol/dp/B000M7Z3H6

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

 

I think it's that only the rosy scenario was actively taught and discussed.  The other stuff was termed non-faith promoting and avoided.  People are still surprised to this day about the seer stone in the hat translation method, because of the church approved artwork that seemed to say otherwise.  The missionary lessons don't talk about polygamy.  The Brigham Young priesthood manual scrubbed any mention of polygamy too.  Seer stones aren't discussed at church and discussion of the essays is still frowned upon in some wards and stakes.  So, I think while maybe publications had the information, it certainly wasn't taught or emphasized.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, why me said:

Darwin had a tremendous impact on christians for that time. There is no question about it. It was a shock for them. But they recovered. However, the tremendous onslaught of attacks on christianity would have an effect. As would the hedonist philosophy that has guided the west for quite some time. And relativism also.

Now about the essays. It is rather interesting that I have books published by the church from the early 80s that have the information that are now in the church essays. It seems that people no longer read books. For example, I have the book Sacred Truths of the D&C. I read the section 132 commentary in the book and low and behold, all is in there. Emma's problem with polygamy, Hyrum encouraging Joseph to write a revelation for Emma, how polygamy revelation was known in 1831 etc. All claimed by critics that such info was hidden by the church. But not so. It is in the book that I just mentioned along with other historical facts. Likewise, Hyrum's polygamy was in his biography published by the church in 2003. But who read that book.

https://deseretbook.com/p/sacred-truths-doctrine-covenants-vol-1-leaun-g-otten-8150?variant_id=101382-ebook

https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Truths-Doctrine-Covenants-Vol/dp/B000M7Z3H6

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

 

Those aren’t official Church books, they are Deseret Book published books - there’s a difference.

Those books would not have been taught from or used within any of the programmes of the church. 

[why me]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it's that only the rosy scenario was actively taught and discussed.  The other stuff was termed non-faith promoting and avoided.  People are still surprised to this day about the seer stone in the hat translation method, because of the church approved artwork that seemed to say otherwise.  The missionary lessons don't talk about polygamy.  The Brigham Young priesthood manual scrubbed any mention of polygamy too.  Seer stones aren't discussed at church and discussion of the essays is still frowned upon in some wards and stakes.  So, I think while maybe publications had the information, it certainly wasn't taught or emphasized.

The seerstone was widely taught in the 70s and 80s. We all knew about the seerstone. We also knew about the hat trick. No problem. However, somewhere along the line, it was determined to water it all done. I don't know why. Arrington mentioned it in his book The Mormon Experience which was published in the seventies. The book contained much about church history. This was a widely read book. And it was sold in church bookshops.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/church/news/viewpoint-testimonies-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Here are a couple articles about the seestone-

Edited September 14, 2017 by why me

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Those aren’t official Church books, they are Deseret Book published books - there’s a difference.

Those books would not have been taught from or used within any of the programmes of the church. 

Well neither was Mormon Doctrine but look at its influence in the 60's through 80's really up to the mid 90's.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, why me said:

The seerstone was widely taught in the 70s and 80s. We all knew about the seerstone. We also knew about the hat trick. No problem. However, somewhere along the line, it was determined to water it all done. I don't know why. Arrington mentioned it in his book The Mormon Experience which was published in the seventies. The book contained much about church history. This was a widely read book. And it was sold in church bookshops.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/a-new-prophet-and-a-new-scripture-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/church/news/viewpoint-testimonies-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Here are a couple articles about the seestone-

I think seer stones, etc. weren't widely known. I knew about it but I grew up near temple square and had a handful of g.a.'s in the ward and half the 12 was in the stake. However, outside of slc and utah, most didn't know of the issues. They weren't emphasized and I understand why they weren't.  

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think seer stones, etc. weren't widely known. I knew about it but I grew up near temple square and had a handful of g.a.'s in the ward and half the 12 was in the stake. However, outside of slc and utah, most didn't know of the issues. They weren't emphasized and I understand why they weren't.  

Knowledge of seerstones seemed pretty varied. I knew about it growing up although I didn't know anything about other controversial things like polyandry or Joseph's early polygamy with Fanny Algers (although growing up outside of Utah it was hard not to know about polygamy). But seerstones were well known as was the idea everyone would get their own. (Largely off of the temple and common interpretations of D&C 130) In my current Utah ward I've heard seerstones and the like discussed since I've moved in - well before the lds.org articles.

Of course I'm not saying that because I'd heard of it everyone would have. However I'm honestly constantly surprised what people say they've never heard of when I've been in meetings with them where such things were explicitly talked about.

Edited September 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Okrahomer]

7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think seer stones, etc. weren't widely known. I knew about it but I grew up near temple square and had a handful of g.a.'s in the ward and half the 12 was in the stake. However, outside of slc and utah, most didn't know of the issues. They weren't emphasized and I understand why they weren't.  

I grew up in Oklahoma.  Never met a GA then or since, but I knew about the seer stones.  My recollection is that it came up in seminary.  I don't recall any of us being very upset about it.  By the way, here's a link to an article in the September 1974 Friend where it is clearly discussed:

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate."  Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone...Even with the help of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, it wasn’t easy to translate the sacred record. It required the Prophet’s greatest concentration and spiritual strength."

And here's another link to the September 1977 Ensign which includes a description of how the prophet used a hat in the process as well.

[Calm]

My age of members I suspect most knew about seerstones in general, including .Joseph having one.  Otoh, I have less confidence they knew Joseph translated at least part of the BoM with one and much less that when he used it, he would put it in a hat.

I think it is important when discussing knowledge of seerstones to explain the context.  I think the Ensigns helped, but there were members who may have had them on their table but didn't read them much.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it's that only the rosy scenario was actively taught and discussed.  The other stuff was termed non-faith promoting and avoided.  People are still surprised to this day about the seer stone in the hat translation method, because of the church approved artwork that seemed to say otherwise.  The missionary lessons don't talk about polygamy.  The Brigham Young priesthood manual scrubbed any mention of polygamy too.  Seer stones aren't discussed at church and discussion of the essays is still frowned upon in some wards and stakes.  So, I think while maybe publications had the information, it certainly wasn't taught or emphasized.

Referencing bolded portion above, after the initial uproar over Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young not having any mention of plural marriage, it was mentioned in each and every manual in the series thereafter when the manual dealt with a Church president who had practiced plural marriage. This is a tempest in a teapot,

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referencing bolded portion above, after the initial uproar over Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young not having any mention of plural marriage, it was mentioned in each and every manual in the series thereafter when the manual dealt with a Church president who had practiced plural marriage. This is a tempest in a teapot,

Yeah, "mentioned" is right when it amounted to just this and nothing else for the next manual:  

Quote

This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35744_eng.pdf?lang=eng

No mention of any specific wives for Joseph F Smith, who was plurally married.

Next year though, no problem mentioning Harold B Lee's monogamous marriage.

Quote

 

Marries Fern Lucinda Tanner in the Salt Lake Temple

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35892_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Following year, with John Taylor, the disappearance of wives happens again:

Quote

This summary omits many important events of his life, including his marriages and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35969_eng.pdf?lang=eng

And while plural marriage itself is mentioned, no references to President Taylor actually participating in it himself are made:

Quote

 

Circumstances for the Saints in the United States proved to be a challenge to this love of freedom. Under the direction of the Lord, the Saints had practiced plural marriage in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. During the 1860s and 1870s, the United States government passed legislation outlawing plural marriage and denying statehood and other rights to the Utah Territory and its citizens. Convinced that the legislation was a violation of the freedom of religion spoken of in the Constitution, the Church used its influence to have the issue brought before the United States Supreme Court. In 1879, just two years after President Taylor assumed the leadership of the Church, the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s anti-polygamy law of 1862. In 1882 and again in 1887, the United States Congress passed additional laws that allowed the federal government to disincorporate the Church as a legal entity and confiscate all Church property in excess of $50,000 (which included four temples in various stages of completion, the Tabernacle, meetinghouses, and many other properties). The legislation was designed to take away basic civil rights of Church members, including the right to vote. These developments opened legal channels for the prosecution of Latter-day Saints who were practicing plural marriage. The Church continued to make legal appeals, but to no avail.

Amid the growing strife over the issue of polygamy, President Taylor was informed that government officials planned to arrest him soon. Having exhausted all legal appeals, he had to decide whether to obey God or man. In his last public discourse, he told the Saints, “I cannot as an honorable man disobey my God . . . and trample these holy and eternal obligations under foot, that God has given me to keep, and which reach into the eternities that are to come.”30 From the day he delivered this sermon until the day of his death almost two and a half years later, he hid in various locations throughout Utah. Rather than turn away from the Lord’s instructions regarding plural marriage, President Taylor chose to go into hiding as a way to obey the Lord and hopefully decrease the persecution against the Church. Elder B. H. Roberts recorded, “When President Taylor retired from public view on the evening of the 1st of February, 1885, it was not out of any consideration for his personal safety, or ease or comfort, but for the public good and in the interests of peace.” 31

Though absent from public view, President Taylor continued to provide leadership to the Church through letters and verbal instructions to trusted associates. However, the confinement, the separation from family and friends, and the stress of his responsibilities began to take their toll. Early in 1887, his health began to fail. For several months he resisted his illness and told others that he would soon recover, but by July it became apparent that his condition was serious. On the evening of 25 July 1887, President Taylor passed away peacefully at the home of Thomas Roueché in Kaysville, Utah."

 

Quote

every manual in the series thereafter when the manual dealt with a Church president who had practiced plural marriage

Not quite.  While President Grant was plurally married when he was President, he was prior to that time.  However, no mention of plurality at all with Heber J Grant, though it uses "marriages":

"It also omits many important events in President Grant’s personal life, such as his marriages and the births and deaths of his children."

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35970_eng.pdf?lang=eng

David O Mckay, another monogamous president, gets to have his marriage mentioned:

Quote

This summary omits some important events in his personal life, such as the births of his children and grandchildren....

Marries Emma Ray Riggs in the Salt Lake Temple (27).

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-david-o-mckay/historical-summary?lang=eng

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referencing bolded portion above, after the initial uproar over Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young not having any mention of plural marriage, it was mentioned in each and every manual in the series thereafter when the manual dealt with a Church president who had practiced plural marriage. This is a tempest in a teapot,

No, it is not a tempest in a tea pot.  Here is an example of the church's new found Openness.  This quote is from Teachings of Presidents of the church: Joseph Smith (chapter 46).

Quote

On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter.

The church reports the expositor was publishing "slander", but the reality is that it was the truthful reporting of Joseph Smith's secret polygamist dealings.   At best, this is misleading.  I personally feel this is organized deception.

[Calm]

President Woodruff:

Quote

It omits many significant events in secular history. It also omits many important events in President Woodruff’s personal life, such as his marriages and the births and deaths of his children. 

And yet it does mention his family in the timeline:

Quote

Returns to his family and other Saints in Nauvoo. 

And of course the OD:

Quote

 

Having received a revelation from the Lord, issues a declaration stating that
the Latter-day Saints should cease the practice of entering into plural marriage.

Members of the Church attending general conference unanimously sustain the revelation President Woodruff received regarding plural marriage. 

 

And again, while mentioning plural marriage, makes no mention of the President's own plural marriages:

Quote

 

Strengthened by the Lord’s guiding hand, President Woodruff led the Latter-day Saints through one of the most turbulent times in this dispensation. In the late 1880s the Church continued to practice plural marriage in obedience to the Lord’s command to the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, the United States govern- ment had recently passed laws against the practice, with severe penalties for the violation of those laws, including confiscation of Church property and denial of Church members’ basic civil rights, such as the right to vote. These developments also opened legal channels for the prosecution of Latter-day Saints who were practicing plural marriage. The Church made legal appeals, but to no avail.

These circumstances weighed heavily on President Woodruff. He sought the will of the Lord on the matter and eventually received a revelation that Latter-day Saints should cease the prac- tice of entering into plural marriage. Obeying the Lord’s com- mand, he issued what came to be known as the Manifesto—an inspired statement that remains the basis of the Church’s stance on the subject of plural marriage. In this public declaration, dated September 24, 1890, he stated his intention to submit to the laws of the land. He also testified that the Church had ceased teaching the practice of plural marriage.42 On October 6, 1890, in a session of general conference, the Latter-day Saints sus- tained their prophet’s declaration, unanimously supporting a statement that he was “fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto.”43 

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36315_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Joseph Smith, mentions plural marriage, but not his own participation:

Quote

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a signifi- cant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Decla- ration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage....

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.21 As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage. 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36481_eng.pdf?lang=eng

No mention of leaving out mention of his wives other than Emma:

Quote

The following chronology provides a brief historical framework for the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith presented in this book....

Marries Emma Hale of Harmony, Pennsylvania; they are married in South Bainbridge, New York...

Records a revelation on the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132) 

I hope they would do better these days since they now have the Gospel Topics on Joseph and Plural Marriage and can understand that there is a big concern about justifying the current practice of plural marriage in some people's eyes if they were to teach that former prophets practiced it, but man, this was poorly done in my opinion.

Finally with the 11th book in the series and 6 other polygamous presidents, with the last polygamous president in the series, Lorenzo Snow, we have a specific mention of his own practice of plural marriages:

Quote

Enters into plural marriage, as then practiced in the Church, by marrying Charlotte Squires and Mary Adaline Goddard...

Imprisoned for practicing plural marriage.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/historical-summary?lang=eng

Pity they didn't start out this way.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

By the way, the ellipses in President Taylor's quotes are poorly done:

Quote

I cannot as an honorable man disobey my God at their behest, forsake my wives and my children, and trample these holy and eternal obligations...

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=26&disc=16

[Scott Lloyd]

The Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals were not intended as history books or biographies. They were collections of quotations from each man about specific gospel teachings as can be applied today. 

And while I agree it was a misstep to leave out any mention of plural marriage in the first book in the series, the one on Brigham Young's teachings, the acknowledgment in the other books where applicable was quite enough, given the purpose of the books. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

No, it is not a tempest in a tea pot.  Here is an example of the church's new found Openness.  This quote is from Teachings of Presidents of the church: Joseph Smith (chapter 46).

The church reports the expositor was publishing "slander", but the reality is that it was the truthful reporting of Joseph Smith's secret polygamist dealings.   At best, this is misleading.  I personally feel this is organized deception.

The Expositor did slander Joseph Smith. But again, the manual was never intended as a history book. 

[Calm]

Quote

 

The Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals were not intended as history books or biographies. They were collections of quotations from each man about specific gospel teachings as can be applied today. 

And while I agree it was a misstep to leave out any mention of plural marriage in the first book in the series, the one on Brigham Young's teachings, the acknowledgment in the other books where applicable was quite enough, given the purpose of the books. 

 

John Taylor is giving a passionate defense of his wives and children and they "..." his family and turned it into a generic defense of the Church alone.

And while monogamous wives get recognition if they are the only wives ever, monogamous and plural wives pretty much disappear with no individual identity if the President was ever involved in polygyny, wives may be mentioned, but written so as to able to appear as one wife, instead of many.  If it was appropriate in the gospel principles manuals to list monogamous wives, then why not mention his other wives?  Or at least his first wife who would be monogamous?

If they were consistent and didn't change the context of Taylor's quote, I would agree with you most likely.  But they had a double standard and altered context.

There is also no hint that President Taylor is polygamous (he had three wives at this time, there is no hint which one it was...it was his first, Lenora, why didn't they use her name like they did Sophia's?) in the storytelling context:

Quote

Elder Taylor’s wounds were of such a serious nature that his wife, who had just arrived, “retired to another room to pray for him that he might have strength to endure it and be restored to her and her family.”  

And then no mention he had five other wives at this time included in "his loved ones" or that Sophia, who married him in 1847, was not the wife spoken of above:

Quote

Many years later, in 1885, when the Saints were well established in the Salt Lake Valley, President Taylor faced the trial of loneliness and isolation. While in hiding to help ease the persecution of the Church by federal authorities, he was unable to see his loved ones, who were themselves under surveillance. His seclusion became especially difficult during the illness and eventual death of his wife Sophia. Because of safety concerns, he was not able to visit her or even attend her funeral.

So they don't mind talking about wives at all for establishing gospel principles, as long as it is one at a time with no hint of polygyny even when it was present:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35969_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Wilford Woodruff's wife, Phoebe, gets a mention in the narrative part of the manual even if she doesn't merit a marriage date in the timeline:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36315_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Quote

 

He bade farewell to his wife, Phoebe, and his only child, one-year-old Sarah Emma. At the time, Phoebe was preg- nant with Wilford Jr., who would be born March 22, 1840.

A few months after leaving Montrose, Elder Woodruff was in the eastern United States, preaching the gospel and preparing for the journey to Great Britain. During this stay he wrote in his journal of three separate dreams in which he saw his wife. 

 

She is also mentioned in other places, but I could not find any mention of his other wives.

If one woman is important enough to be mentioned because of her relationship with a president, why not the other wives in his life?

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

No, it is not a tempest in a tea pot.  Here is an example of the church's new found Openness.  This quote is from Teachings of Presidents of the church: Joseph Smith (chapter 46).

The church reports the expositor was publishing "slander", but the reality is that it was the truthful reporting of Joseph Smith's secret polygamist dealings.   At best, this is misleading.  I personally feel this is organized deception.

It's not either/or. While I feel like the attack on the Expositor was a bad idea that ultimately led to Joseph's death, let's be honest that it was also slanderous. Yes many things were also true such as polygamy, plurality of God and a somewhat mangled version of having ones Calling and Election made sure. The systematic robbing of gentiles though is a bit more indefensible. I can completely understand why to Joseph it sounded like a repeat of Missouri in 1838. Further in terms of the jurisprudence of the day Joseph was justified in what I do. I don't agree with the jurisprudence of the day of course. But let's be honest. Compared to a lot of judgments this was pretty minor. (We're talking an era where most people saw no conflict between individual rights and slavery) 

Edited September 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referencing bolded portion above, after the initial uproar over Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young not having any mention of plural marriage, it was mentioned in each and every manual in the series thereafter when the manual dealt with a Church president who had practiced plural marriage. This is a tempest in a teapot,

It's good that the correction was made after the uproar. I guess agitation works sometimes.

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Those aren’t official Church books, they are Deseret Book published books - there’s a difference.

Those books would not have been taught from or used within any of the programmes of the church. 

 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well neither was Mormon Doctrine but look at its influence in the 60's through 80's really up to the mid 90's.

I think if you consider who the authors are in each of the examples, including yours, the answer to your point might be self evident.

I’m also reasonably sure Mormon Doctrine was officially recognised as recommended reading. Virtually every member of a certain age has a copy of Mormon Doctrine on their shelves, or did.

and Mormon Doctrine was/is used in references in lds.org content.

But apart from all that, yes they’re exactly the same.

[Calm]

"I’m also reasonably sure Mormon Doctrine was officially recognised as recommended reading."

I would be interested in seeing such an official recognition for the whole book.

The book I heard constantly being recommended at church by local leaders was Robinson's Believing Christ.  I would not be the least bit surprised if quickly overtook Mormon Doctrine on shelfs, when I was at the Church bookstore, even though it had been out for sometime, we sold several Believing Christ or Following Christ each month.  I don't think I sold any Mormon Doctrine myself, but it didn't go into clearance so we probably sold a few each year.  Most people probably inherited a copy if they were interested.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

My age of members I suspect most knew about seerstones in general, including .Joseph having one.  Otoh, I have less confidence they knew Joseph translated at least part of the BoM with one and much less that when he used it, he would put it in a hat.

I think it is important when discussing knowledge of seerstones to explain the context.

This is more in line with my knowledge of the seer stone.  I knew Joseph Smith had one.  I also knew that Hyrum Page had one that Joesph didn't like.  What I didn't know is the pretty much the entire Book of Mormon was revealed by the seerstone in a hat.  I grew up thinking that the Golden Plates were important.  That Joseph Smith translated those plates on the other side of a curtain from Oliver Cowdery.  I grew up singing primary songs about the importance of the Golden Plates.  As it turns out, they were irrelevant to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  THAT was a surprise. 

I also grew up knowing that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  I had no idea he was running around marrying 14 year old girls with the promise to their family of exaltation if they allowed it.  Or that he was marrying other men's wives while they were on missions for the church.  THAT was aa surprise.  

I might add that I taught seminary for bout 6 years.  Neither surprise was ever addressed in the manuals.  

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I’m also reasonably sure Mormon Doctrine was officially recognised as recommended reading."

I would be interested in seeing such an official recognition for the whole book.

The book I heard constantly being recommended at church by local leaders was Robinson's Believing Christ.  I would not be the least bit surprised if quickly overtook Mormon Doctrine on shelfs, when I was at the Church bookstore, even though it had been out for sometime, we sold several Believing Christ or Following Christ each month.  I don't think I sold any Mormon Doctrine myself, but it didn't go into clearance so we probably sold a few each year.  Most people probably inherited a copy if they were interested.

When I was on my mission, the mission home sold the standard works, Jesus the Christ and Mormon Doctrine.  None other.  While not required, missionaries were encouraged to read and study both books.  I still have my Mormon Doctrine from my mission with all of its Catholic Church being the harlot, and dark skins being a curse from God etc. in it. 

I also have my original Book of Mormon from that time period before some of the more sensitive verses were edited.  What makes my Book of Mormon interesting is that I have the signatures of Gorden B. Hinkley, Bruce R. McConkie, Mark E. Peterson  Spencer W. Kimball and a few other general authorities written on the inside cover.  

Edited September 15, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

"As it turns out, they were irrelevant to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon."

I think this is a huge overstatement even if one assumes JS never sat in front of the plates and somehow the words upon them appeared in English nor did he try any direct sign to word translation.  Interest in the Book existed because of the Plates.  Writing down the signs for Harris to take to Anthon necessitated the presence of the plates.  Knowledge and personal experience with the plates and their impact on others got the resources to produce and publish the work.  People were then committed to missionary work by the full story of the plates, including belief that there were those who had held the plates, turn their pages and viewed the strange markings upon them.

That also disregards the impact at the other end, what it meant to Mormon and Moroni to continue to have a sacred trust caring for the records, writing the story of their people and their covenants with God.  It was a work that tied them to a future family in Christ even as they saw their present family die physical or spiritual deaths...or both.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's good that the correction was made after the uproar. I guess agitation works sometimes.

Agitation may not have been necessary or even helpful though.  The "correction" shared the barest minimal of bit of information, plural marriage existed...half a sentence in one manual.  There was no wholehearted acceptance that there was a better way, but what looks to me more like digging in.   After that first response, they stopped qualifying the President's marriages as plural.  One could have thought they were serial marriages, not concurrent.  They wouldnt even allow more than one wife's name to be used in Taylor's narratives to avoid the reality the "his wife" they were talking about were two different people.

Until Pres. Snow's manual, there was no apparent discussion of the impact of the principle on Church members.  No mention leaders were hunted not because they were Church leaders of a Church that practiced polygyny, but were married to multiple wives.  Women were less mentioned, not more, at least as individuals that I saw.

If instead of using agitation outside of the Church as well as within, members had made use of the feedback system, making suggestions based on noncondemning reasoning...how knowing more about the complications of past presidents' family could give them hope and faith that they would be able to endure as well and live good faithful lives in spite of divorces and losing spouses and children to disbelief or how  learning a fuller history would allow students to see our prophets as real people, not just talking heads.

Instead, with all the fanfare around the discovery of the awkward censoring/unacknowledged alterations, the Church leadership likely did what it appears to me to most consistently do, give a bare minimal bandaid treatment instead of a full one, removed all hint of controversy to prevent triggering it again, and then once they saw the controversy had passed, start doing it more like they should have in the first place and then continue building and refining.

Minus the agitation, I think there could have been a good chance the manuals would have followed the Snow style after calm and reasonable members pointed out lost opportunities to teach, to include women more actively (since it was also a RS manual series) and show their long term involvement in Church leadership as well as faithfulness in hard times.  Instead we lost ten years to manuals that minimized women in our history at a time when the opposite was needed.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm