Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Beowulf]

After hesitating a LONG time, I am finally reading Dan Vogel's biography of Joseph Smith.

While he is good on historical facts, none of those facts are new to me, having read them elsewhere (I am still on Joseph's childhood, at the moment). But as a historian, I am disturbed at his injection of assumptions into the narrative, and can see where Vogel is heading already.

When Joseph gets his bone cut out, at great pain, and then being on crutches for 18 months, or getting tossed out of a carriage so that the driver can make room for girlfriends (as happened to him at age 11), Vogel asserts this must have been traumatic to him.

Maybe. But did Joseph EVER tell us he was traumatized? (In point of fact, he never told us about these events at all. We only know about them because his mother wrote it down. And SHE never reported that he was traumatized, either. In other words, it is just Vogel's opinion.)

My point here is that history is always INTERPRETED by someone. If the person does not believe (as Dan Vogel has candidly admitted), then his project will be biased, in looking for something, ANYTHING, that could explain Joseph's unusual behavior.

By contrast, a faithful history looks at JS, and sees a prophet in formation. It becomes hagiographical almost unconsciously.

Neither of these interpretations will be totally accurate. Granted, the hagiography tends to overlook Joseph's defects. Dan Vogel's naturalistic version, on the other hand, refuses to take Joseph at his word.

Beowulf

[Dill Pickles]

Ken Spearheads the Next "Op" of the "Strengthening the Members" Committee: Okey-dokey boys, gether 'round and gear up! We got ourselves another runner! Rifles? Check! Ammo? Check! Tasers? Check! OC? Check! Flash-bang grenades? Check! Call out the dogs, and mobilize the copters with the search lights! I want a hard-target search of every building, every ranch house, every outhouse, every hen house, and every doghouse in this area! He kin run, but he cain't hide! He's ours, boys! Jist give it time, and he's ours!

from the Pickle jar: hey, Worchestershire sauce! Could you check the cooking sherry bottle? Looks like someone's been sipping it instead of dipping it again.

[HiJolly]

N,

Your post is so... irritating... that I can't even address it point by point. But I will respond to your mention of Grant Palmer.

<snip>  A recent example is how the Church treated Grant Palmer, whose crime was to realize that there are issues hidden, and he seemed to think LDS are honest people and deserve to know the truth.  Yet, what happened to Mr. Palmer when he wrote a book about how he was trying to make the most of some bad things?  He was held up for Church discipline.  As he said during his radio interview in SLC before the 'hearing' - "I don't know how to repent of the truth."

Is that his crime? I think not. He was paid to teach things he didn't believe. That should be a crime. I think I'd change careers, if it were me, instead of lying just for money (in this case, money becomes filthy lucre, IMO). He wrote a book full of speculation and opinion. I read the book. He was mistaken in his disbelief. As I closed the book for the last time, I felt a heavy sadness for his lack of faith. As we experience joy in teaching others the glory of God and His Gospel, so Grant will someday see the opposite of this, as he experiences the loss of faith of many who read and believe his error.

HiJolly

[charity]

Neighbor, I am clueless here. What did you think Ken was referring to? Maybe I will be highly offended too, if I knew what was going on. Thanks

[Zakuska]

I found it quite amusing. The flash-bangs where a nice touch! You play CS?

[Neighbor]

Grant, to me, seems to love LDS more than you seem to understand. I'm sure he came to see that all was not as was first painted to him in the portrait of Joseph Smith Jr. that the Church envisions.

Who was it that said: "No man has seen God at any time"?

Did they lie? Was the Holy Spirit who inspired their words somehow ignorant of the future?

Personally, I believe the statement was true, so I don't believe the latter story as it developed into his personally haveing seen God. The story doesn't fit with Phillipians 2 either.

I'll believe Jesus, you believe whoever you want to. I'm just making a comment for your consideration.

[Zakuska]

Is it not mentioned as a "Vision".

Did Not Ezekiel have the Vision? (Ez1)

Did Not John? (Rev 4-5)

If you look at the writings of the prophets and compare them. They all describe the same exact thing!

The beast with six wings are all over the bible!

You say you beleive Jesus... The probelm with that statment is Jesus didnt write the verse in question.

And speaking of Story development. The first telling of Pauls vision doesnt match the 3rd. Over time it got more spectacular! Have you ever stopped and compared it?

In the first telling only paul fell down. By the time he told it to the King... Paul his donkey and everyone else fell down as well.

Following you logic... I should reject both Joseph Smith and Paul.

[awyatt]

Zakuska said: You say you beleive Jesus... The probelm with that statment is Jesus didnt write the verse in question.

Good point. People don't believe Jesus; they believe what someone else wrote about Jesus. We don't have the words of Jesus Himself, except as they are (sometimes inconsistently) recorded by others.

-Allen

[Neighbor]

Charity,

Don't take my word for it. Read the words of the personal bodyguard of both Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young who was abandoned and sacrificed to cover up Church involvement in the MMM. Read his words and see what you think. He covers the history from early on until his execution from the viewpoint of an insider who wanted the truth to be known. You can get a copy of it at Amazon.com, and it is pretty reasonable. An original copy costs over $800.00 because the Church was so dillegent to destroy the book out of every source of public access. They didn't get them all though, and you have the privilage to hear the history of the early Mormon Church outside the bounds of the Church authorities, but from a TBM. See what you think of it. If you allow the Church to dissuade you from reading it, you are allowing them to deny you your free agency.

Truth matters.

"Mormonism Unveiled or Life & Confessions of John D. Lee and Brigham Young", commonly known as "Mormonism Unveiled", not to be confused with Howe's book of the same title.

John maintained his faith in Joseph Smith and the Church in spite of it all.

[HiJolly]

Grant, to me, seems to love LDS more than you seem to understand.  I'm sure he came to see that all was not as was first painted to him in the portrait of Joseph Smith Jr. that the Church envisions. 

What a .... Sorry, I don't need Dunamis this time to clean up my text! *I* "came to see that all was not as was"... blah blah blah. So what? We grow up, we learn how things are, we either lose our innocence or are protected by it. That how it goes.

<snip>  I'll believe Jesus, you believe whoever you want to.  I'm just making a comment for your consideration.

Consider it considered, and I'll leave it at that. He may have all that love, I don't question that. After all, working in the prison as he did does take love for your fellow man, IMO. OTOH, he was being, again, paid... Hmmm...

HiJolly

[awyatt]

Did anyone bother to notice my earlier post in this thread where I pointed out that John Corrill, in starting this thread, was not completely forthcoming. He states that the Church has a problem with being forthcoming, and then he is not forthcoming either.

Just curious.

-Allen

[Zakuska]

Hmm... I have a Journal of one of JS personal Body Guards. It was my G.Grandpa Hill. You wouldn't beleive the change and blessings Joseph and the church brought into his life.

[HiJolly]

"Mormonism Unveiled or Life & Confessions of John D. Lee and Brigham Young", commonly known as "Mormonism Unveiled", not to be confused with Howe's book of the same title.

John maintained his faith in Joseph Smith and the Church in spite of it all.

Yeah... would that be because he was stupid, or gullible? I don't think so.

HiJolly

[Zakuska]

Neigbor,

Again I ask you... why did Pauls story grow more spectacular over time?

[USU78]

{snip}

Read the words of the personal bodyguard of both Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young who was abandoned and sacrificed to cover up Church involvement in the MMM.

{snip to end}

Not the first, and certainly not the last, example of tendential biography masquerading as autobiography.

[USU78]

{snip}

Members who dared to speak the truth were sometimes killed or dismembered.

{snip to end}

List the names of such members.

List the alleged crimes of which they were accused.

List the persons responsible for their deaths.

Edited by the moderator

[sibling]

Truth matters.

"Mormonism Unveiled or Life & Confessions of John D. Lee and Brigham Young", commonly known as "Mormonism Unveiled", not to be confused with Howe's book of the same title.

Oh. My. Goodness.

In pursuing his/her hilarious rant against Joseph Smith, Neighbor has unintentionally revealed far more about himself/herself than about Joseph. That quote above is simply spectacular.

[USU78]

Edited by the moderator

Thank you. I was about to go back and do it myself.

Sorry, folks.

[hondo]

IF early members did not know about the first vision how did they react when they found out about it? Plus what is history? should evryone know evrything? i sthat possible Is a church the place to disseminate historical knowledge? Are historians capable of reading and writing all of the know promary and secondary sources? Is it their fault we don't read what has been written? What about the other disciplines like anthropolgy, astronomy, entymology or cultural studies? Should the church here in Canada teach about the sociological makeup of the Church here and forget about the states? Should we conduct social psych experiments in church and sell our info to psych profs in order to appease members involved in business and pysch studies?

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

...That said, however, I think the Church bears some of the blame for avoiding (or at least downplaying) embarrassing events and doctrines in its past.  One need look no further than this year's Gospel Doctrine class, which is the study of the D&C and Church history.  Peruse the teacher's manual for the lesson dealing with D&C 132 and eternal marriage (it's online); you'll note that the subject of plural marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the main lesson. In fact, it is only addressed in a single paragraph in a section of optional "Additional Helps" (and the polygamy paragraph is the sixth and LAST "Additional Help" in that section); in addition, this brief paragraph instructs that it should be read ONLY if a class member raises the issue first. So much for the Church being "up front" about its polygamy past, even when the class is about Church history ....

Actually, you are exaggerating a bit. It does not say that it should be read ONLY anything. It simply states the following:

6.    Plural marriage

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

Now that is a far cry from evasiveness. It simply reminds the teacher that the subject of plural marriage should not dominate the lesson and prepares the teacher for events where the subject will come up (and it will because the students are supposed to read Doctrine and Covenants 132, for crying out loud). Nevertheless, the subject matter of the lesson is eternal marriage as it pertains to us today. Hiding something might be possible if there really were a paragraph instructing the teacher to avoid the subject and evade questions. Yet, there is nothing like that there. Additionally, this latter paragraph clearly states:

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it.

So much for hiding the fact that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage!

Another interesting tidbit, also from this year's Gospel Doctrine class: each member was given a small booklet called Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a companion resource for the members' study of the D&C and Church history. If you look in the sections of the booklet dealing with the Kirtland and Nauvoo periods, you will not find any mention of plural marriage. Instead, the FIRST (and only) mention of polygamy in the booklet is 50 YEARS out of sequence! On page 97, AFTER the discussion of the Church's Jubilee celebration in 1880, and within the context of the federal prosecution of Utah polygamy that led to the Manifesto, the booklet for the first (and only) time mentions Joseph Smith's receiving the plural marriage revelation in the 1830's. Using clever wordplay, this section takes care not to admit that Joseph personally practiced polygamy, only that he received the revelation (the writer does this by saying that only "some" LDS practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo -- JS is not specifically included). This is just one recent example of the LDS Church's shying away from its embarrassing polygamous past, especially during this bicentennial year of JS's birth.

This manual is oriented thematically to the order of time periods of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and fills in some historical details but is brief, ala the title, A Brief History, etc. Fact is, this revelation did not pertain to the entire Church in 1843, when it was first dictated. It did not become pertinent until at least 1852. At that time it was a private affair among certain of the leaders of the Church. The subject of plural marriage certainly was most pertinent to the period covered by the book where it was, and although it did not mention specifics, it did admit that some at Nauvoo did practice plural marriage.

Of course, the student was expected to actually read Doctrine and Covenants 132. Any student who did so would become quite abundantly aware that Joseph Smith did indeed practice plural marriage, even if all specifics were not known. They do not pertain to us in earth life now. It is not important, particularly for A BRIEF HISTORY, to bring up all the intimate details of anyone's life or the Church's practices in the past. The text is a supplement to the necessary readings of the Doctrine and Covenants for the lessons. There is no way this can be used as a case of hiding anything because the students in the class should have read the assigned sections of the Doctrine and Covenants prior to attending class and will know that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage thereby.

Those who want to find out more can obtain access to the works cited in the footnotes or can get up off their lazy LDS rear-ends obtain a class manual for an Institute class, or can obtain other books to help them learn more, if they are so inclined. Most people couldn't care less about Joseph Smith's private life. It is not important and teaching a detailed history of the Church with everyone's warts and skeletons is not part of the threefold mission of the Church--it's a history of the Church not a complete history of everyone who ever lived and led the Church. Learning more than the teachings of the Church is the individual responsibility of every member of the Church. Fact is, there is little trace of the history of the early Church. All we have is the brief history written by Luke and a few attempts at Church history by other individuals over the centuries. We have infinitely more than they left us. We can see the human side of the leaders of the Church, if we wanted to do so, without ever having to meet them. The early saints did not have that luxury. But, people in all ages tended to have their hero worship, and mental images of what they think leaders are supposed to be, and our dispensation is no different.

It can sometimes be shocking to members when they find out that Joseph Smith was not as perfect a person as their cultural Mormonism led them to believe. If they had kept in mind that the Apostles and prophets were men of passion who make mistakes as all men do, and as even the prophets and apostles of the Bible, rather than God's perfect-example typewriters, they might not become shaken up about it. The key is that the message is true not whether or not those who taught it were able to live perfect lives without sin.

Several leaders of the Church stated in the early days that even were Joseph Smith to have been the worst lout on the face of the earth, they knew the message was true when they heard it and/or studied it. That was enough for most of them. Some, it is true, had their sensibilities shocked when they met Joseph Smith the man, but those who were the sheep of the Lord Jesus knew the truthfulness of the message when they heard it. That is enough for me, in spite of the fact that I am very well acquainted with little known aspects of Church history and of the private lives of many of its leaders. The messengers are of no concern to my salvation. The message is. I remain unconcerned and the fact is that the Church is hiding nothing of importance. I think you might be surprised as to what you might find discussed in the magazines of the Church. If you are a member, you should read them as the leaders of the Church keep stressing to the members of the Church. Members might learn more about their history if they would just do what the leaders of the Church are encouraging them to do. The leaders of the Church are doing their jobs and every member of the Church should do the same.

[Beowulf]

The argument is that the First Vision was unknown for many years. Neighbor has undoubtedly been reading these arguments, and been seduced by them.

I have recently seen many allusions to the First Vision, by JS and others, dating to very early in Church history, which show that the story was known among the Saints, even if it had not been written down in the form that we know of it today.

[KevinG]

http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/harmony.htm

[Zakuska]

Several leaders of the Church stated in the early days that even were Joseph Smith to have been the worst lout on the face of the earth, they knew the message was true when they heard it and/or studied it. That was enough for most of them. Some, it is true, had their sensibilities shocked when they met Joseph Smith the man, but those who were the sheep of the Lord Jesus knew the truthfulness of the message when they heard it. That is enough for me, in spite of the fact that I am very well acquainted with little known aspects of Church history and of the private lives of many of its leaders. The messengers are of no concern to my salvation. The message is. I remain unconcerned and the fact is that the Church is hiding nothing of importance. I think you might be surprised as to what you might find discussed in the magazines of the Church. If you are a member, you should read them as the leaders of the Church keep stressing to the members of the Church. Members might learn more about their history if they would just do what the leaders of the Church are encouraging them to do. The leaders of the Church are doing their jobs and every member of the Church should do the same.

Seems to me that when Judas found out who Jesus really was and he didn't measure up to his standards of being the Rogue warlord he was waiting for. He betrayed him. Seems to me too many people have the attitude of Judas.

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

Anyone been following the Joseph Smith Ancestry DNA tests thread over on the Z?

If we are having this much difficulty in our technologically advanced day and age at even finding one "ancestor" of Joseph Smith from his supposed "wifes" with signed affidavits...

Then they expect us to beleive we are going to find DNA marks from 600BC.

Of course they are having troubles. DNA only tells part of the truth about our ancestry. mtDNA and y-chDNA tend to tell only one line's history. But, historical happenstances can obliterate entire mtDNA and y-chDNA lines. For example, even if ten thousand of your ancestors were Semites, unless the direct line of your mother were also Semite, not a lick of Semite ancestry would show. Same with the other line. Autosomal DNA is not of much help, either. It has a half-life and half of it gets intermixed and replaced with each generation. Add to that rapes, men killed in battle, unknown adoptions, population shifts, replacements, etc., and things get far more difficult.

[zshallr]

Not having read this entire thread but only the heading I think everyone would benefit from reading "On Being A Mormon Historian" by D Michael Quinn which addresses this very topic. It's very good in my opinion.