Church History in Church Materials

[kawikadave]

I have no first hand knowledge about the intent of the above mentioned meetings content you list.  However, I speak as a person who is/was uncomfortable that the then president of the church spoke and now today "someone", I do not know who, has decided that parts of his comments STAY and part of it GOES. 

I concur that it is impractical for a lesson manual to be a TOTAL "historical treatise".  Since you appear to KNOW something of the manual authors intentions and thinking, could you enlighten me as to the logic behind why NO mention is made about Brigham Youngs polygamous wives?  I am referring to the "Historical Summary".  See my attached link. 

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm

1824:

Marries Miriam Works (23).

1832:

Baptized into the Church and ordained an elder. Wife dies (31).

1834:

Marries Mary Ann Angell. Acts as captain in march of Zion

[Daniel Peterson]

I speak as a person who is/was uncomfortable that the then president of the church spoke and now today "someone", I do not know who, has decided that parts of his comments STAY and part of it GOES. 

What you're saying, with all due respect, makes no sense. It's essentially inevitable, when quoting someone, that we quote only what is to our present purposes. Otherwise, to carry your principle to its logical extreme, everytime we quoted Brigham Young, we would have to quote everything Brigham Young ever said.

Whenever I quote anything -- including your post -- I make a decision as to what stays and what goes.

Now, obviously, such decisions can be made in such a way as to distort the actual intent of the person being quoted. (I could, for instance, quote you as saying "I speak as a person who is/was . . . the then president of the church.") But I don't see that anything of that kind has occurred in this case.

I concur that it is impractical for a lesson manual to be a TOTAL "historical treatise".

My point is that the manual wasn't intended to be a "historical treatise" at all.

Since you appear to KNOW something of the manual authors intentions and thinking,

As a matter of fact, I served for nearly ten years on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee. I have some sense for how these committees work and what their mandate is.

could you enlighten me as to the logic behind why NO mention is made about Brigham Youngs polygamous wives?

As I've said before, I think it was a mistake. On the other hand, I don't think it would have been useful, in this kind of a manual, to have listed the date of every single one of Brigham Young's marriages.

Why was any mention of plural marriage omitted? Probably because (a) the manual was designed for teaching today's Latter-day Saints about their life in today's church, and because (b) plural marriage is not in effect for today's Latter-day Saints. But there may also have been some sensitivity to the topic of polygamy, both for the good reason of not wishing to supply any ammunition for "fundamentalist" schismatics and (perhaps) for the less justifiable reason of being, as some Latter-day Saints are, embarrassed by the practice.

So any NEW convert who is asked about BY polygamous marriages is supposed to answer how?  Maybe it is hard for any BIC or "scholarly" mormon to realize that there are many LDS members who place great trust (maybe not the right word) in the leaders who encourage them to study scriptures and pray.  If something is not mentioned/or taught in the scriptures, the lesson manuals, in conference talks, primary, ensign articles or church website where do they go?  It's late and I hope this makes sense.

As I've shown several times here in the past day or so, however, plural marriage is mentioned in several commonly used Church manuals.

[Zakuska]

Why was any mention of plural marriage omitted? Probably because (a) the manual was designed for teaching today's Latter-day Saints about their life in today's church, and because ( plural marriage is not in effect for today's Latter-day Saints. But there may also have been some sensitivity to the topic of polygamy, both for the good reason of not wishing to supply any ammunition for "fundamentalist" schismatics and (perhaps) for the less justifiable reason of being, as some Latter-day Saints are, embarrassed by the practice.

Yep, We're Damned if we do and we're Damned if we don't.

[Avatar4321]

Or one or two hundred.....

Be careful of this. When we start thinking everyone is ignorant but ourselves then we are becoming proud. Pride is the path of the dark side.

[Avatar4321]

True.dat

Getting anything through the heads of my seminary class (they always looked on me as the "expert") was like splitting hemlock knots with corn bread for a wedge and a pumpkin for a hammer, if you catch my meaning.

I dont know about that. I know i never really got anything out of seminary itself. I think i slept through half of the lessons. but yet when i started actually reading for myself like i should have been doing in the past i realized that i did learn alot from seminary. I just didnt realize it.

[Avatar4321]

Kdave wrote:

In other words...

The missionary discussions should include:

- Mountains Meadow Massacre

- Book of Mormon Translation Methods

- Polygamy (Who, What, When, Where, How)

- Treasure Hunting 101

- Joseph Smith's Criminal Record (includes charges, court dates, etc.)

- Bank Failures in Church History

- Apostate Review (who left the church over the past 150 years and why)

- Adam/God Theory

- Journal of Discourses Review

- Alternative Sources for the Book of Mormon (Spaulding Theory, Kinderhook, et al.)

- Danites and Other Religious Death Squads

- Spiritual Wifery and John C. Bennett

- Masonry & the Endowment

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Of course all these would need to be written by critics, because they alone know or can interepret what really happened in history.

Even if the church were to do this, it would not silence the critics. They would disagree with the interpretation and/or content. In other words, the people calling for additional "disclosure" and claiming "coverup" won't be satisfied.

I don't think this would be necessary. The church could simply stop the nonsensical practice of calling itself, "the one true church" and simply refer to itself as "one church amongst many, with a lot of past baggage"

That fits the bill a bit better.

So you want us to lie?

[Avatar4321]

Finally, I would note that the truth of Mormonism, though it is very much bound up with the claims of Joseph Smith, does not rest solely upon his testimony. In almost every major revelatory event after the First Vision, he has co-witnesses (e.g., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.), whose testimony is extraordinarily impressive (notwithstanding recent attempts, which I regard as stunningly weak, to dismiss it).

I would add alittle to that.

If Joseph had been the scum of the Universe, would that invalidate anything he taught if it was true? The fact that people live or dont live certain standards does not negate their truthfulness or falsehood.

In fact, if i remember my Church history, there were several times Joseph that look pretty bad to test them to see if they were following the man or the doctrine that he taught. Some passed others more than likely failed.

[Uncle Dale]

... I think that the overall picture of Joseph Smith yielded by the primary documents is clearly that of an honest and sincere man, who genuinely believed himself to be receiving revelation from God and who tried, within the limits of sinful humanity, to do God's will. The difficult matter of the origins of plural marriage needs to be situated within that larger context.

It's rather like hearing about something seemingly bad done by a long-time and trusted friend. In such cases, we typically give the friend the benefit of the doubt, assuming that there are exculpating factors, or elements that we don't know about, or that he had reasons that we haven't yet learned. If, on the other hand, we hear that someone in whom we have no trust has done something apparently bad, we are much more ready to believe it to be really bad and to regard it as merely one more redundant example of his bad character.

Interesting -- what you have to say about "bad character." I had a friend a number

of years back, who was in every way an exemplary fellow. He had a very good

reputation, having lived and taught on the island of Saipan for over a decade. Nobody

had anything bad to say about him. Then it was discovered that he had fled murder

charges in the state of Kentucky. Shortly after this news became public, he departed

the island. So far as I know, his "character" was good. Had he remained and faced

the legal process, I might have even offered to do what I could to help him. But his

running away from the law -- a second time -- forever put a big red question mark

upon his "character," in my book.

Finally, I would note that the truth of Mormonism, though it is very much bound up with the claims of Joseph Smith, does not rest solely upon his testimony.  In almost every major revelatory event after the First Vision, he has co-witnesses (e.g., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.), whose testimony is extraordinarily impressive (notwithstanding recent attempts, which I regard as stunningly weak, to dismiss it).

As you may have heard, I am writing a book on Elder Sidney Rigdon. I estimate

that it is about one-tenth complete. I hope to finish the writing in a couple of years.

Exactly what "extraordinarily impressive" "testimony" are you referring to in the

case of Rigdon? His professed divine revelation, leading him to accept the BoM as

"true?" Or perhaps his joint-vision of the three degrees of glory? Or maybe his work

on the JST and Lectures on Faith?

What counter evidence, in regard to Sidney Rigdon's good character -- or his

trustworthiness -- or his truthfulness -- or his being divinely favored -- or his good

leadership, do you dismiss as "stunningly weak?"

Do you accept as valid the general opinions and evidence, offered against him, by

elders Orson Hyde and Jedediah M. Grant, following Rigdon's departure from Nauvoo?

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Grnt1844.htm

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Hyd1845A.htm

Do you accept the conclusion of Rigdon's most recent biographer -- that Rigdon

already knew of the "Golden Bible," before the arrival of Pratt, Cowdery, et al., in

November of 1830?

Every single time I offer these topics of discussion to a Mormon correspondent, he

invariably walks away from them -- will not discuss them.

Is it me? ------ or is it Rigdon?

Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

Interesting -- what you have to say about "bad character." I had a friend a number

of years back, who was in every way an exemplary fellow. He had a very good

reputation, having lived and taught on the island of Saipan for over a decade. Nobody

had anything bad to say about him. Then it was discovered that he had fled murder

charges in the state of Kentucky. Shortly after this news became public, he departed

the island. So far as I know, his "character" was good. Had he remained and faced

the legal process, I might have even offered to do what I could to help him. But his

running away from the law -- a second time -- forever put a big red question mark

upon his "character," in my book.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, exactly. I wasn't offering an infallible rule. I was commenting on typical human behavior, which I happen to think is, on the whole, reasonable.

Finally, I would note that the truth of Mormonism, though it is very much bound up with the claims of Joseph Smith, does not rest solely upon his testimony.  In almost every major revelatory event after the First Vision, he has co-witnesses (e.g., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, etc.), whose testimony is extraordinarily impressive (notwithstanding recent attempts, which I regard as stunningly weak, to dismiss it).

As you may have heard, I am writing a book on Elder Sidney Rigdon. I estimate

that it is about one-tenth complete. I hope to finish the writing in a couple of years.

I hadn't heard. I wish you well.

Exactly what "extraordinarily impressive" "testimony" are you referring to in the

case of Rigdon? His professed divine revelation, leading him to accept the BoM as

"true?" Or perhaps his joint-vision of the three degrees of glory? Or maybe his work

on the JST and Lectures on Faith?

The vision of the three degrees of glory. But I mostly had the Book of Mormon witnesses in mind.

What counter evidence, in regard to Sidney Rigdon's good character -- or his

trustworthiness -- or his truthfulness -- or his being divinely favored -- or his good

leadership, do you dismiss as "stunningly weak?"

On that point, I specifically had in mind Dan Vogel's criticisms of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

Sorry, but I'm leaving the state (and my computer) early tomorrow morning -- the trip has been planned for two months, and is not simply a spontaneous attempt to escape your arguments regarding Sidney Rigdon -- so I won't have time to spar with you.

[Uncle Dale]

Sorry, but I'm leaving the state (and my computer) early tomorrow morning -- the trip has been planned for two months, and is not simply a spontaneous attempt to escape your arguments regarding Sidney Rigdon -- so I won't have time to spar with you.

I will be doing the same -- though not for another couple pf days.

I think I'll go visit a certain grave in the Kirtland cemetery, one last time.

happy trails --

Uncle Dale

[Abulafia]

Here is one example (in now way is this meant to be the "smoking gun", it is just one randomly selected) the bold is what is omitted:

As printed in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young: