New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History

[Uncle Dale]

More like "We misreport and you decide."

OK, then -- let's change that from the editorial/royal "we" to just plain "I."

I report.

You decide.

UD

[selek]

OK, then -- let's change that from the editorial/royal "we" to just plain "I."

I report.

You decide.

UD

We have decided!

We shall have chocolate ice cream for dessert!

As for the others, let them eat cake!

[Uncle Dale]

We have decided!

We shall have chocolate ice cream for dessert!

As for the others, let them eat cake!

May I please have the melted drops which fall to the floor from the Elders' table?

Uncle "I always was a push-over for triple-fudge brownie marshmallow chocolate ice cream -- yummy!" Dale

[T-Shirt]

My Godfrey ancestors were in North Ogden when Marsh came to visit (I think it was in the 1870s).

My impression was that he was only re-baptized by proxy after his death. But, I may be wrong.

For what it's worth, Marsh was rebaptized 16 July 1857. He died in January of 1866.

[Uncle Dale]

For what it's worth, Marsh was rebaptized 16 July 1857. He died in January of 1866.

Wasn't everybody in the Mormon Church re-baptized in about 1857?

If Marsh was in Utah as early as 1857, that's news to me --- but perhaps he was re-baptized

elsewhere and did not come to The Valley until the 1860s (when my relatives met him in Ogden).

Maybe somebody should write a biography of this interesting fellow?

UD

[T-Shirt]

Wasn't everybody in the Mormon Church re-baptized in about 1857?

If Marsh was in Utah as early as 1857, that's news to me --- but perhaps he was re-baptized

elsewhere and did not come to The Valley until the 1860s (when my relatives met him in Ogden).

Maybe somebody should write a biography of this interesting fellow?

UD

Thomas was rebaptized in Nebraska on his way to Salt Lake City. He arrived in the Salt Lake Valley on Sept. 4, 1857. He was officially welcomed back into the Church at a conference on Sept. 6, 1857. He remarried on Oct 4, 1857 and:

On 11 March 1859, Thomas B. Marsh was re-ordained an elder, and by November 1861 he had been ordained a high priest. In the Endowment House on 1 November 1862, he received his endowment and was sealed to his wife, Hannah. It was about this same time that the couple opted to settle near Ogden. Thomas was placed in the care of David M. Stuart, Ogden First Ward.

(BYU Studies Vol. 20 pg 400.)

T-Shirt

[Scott Lloyd]

Thomas was rebaptized in Nebraska on his way to Salt Lake City. He arrived in the Salt Lake Valley on Sept. 4, 1857. He was officially welcomed back into the Church at a conference on Sept. 6, 1857. He remarried on Oct 4, 1857 and:

T-Shirt

Since you have been kind enough to provide this much detail, T-Shirt, perhaps Dale and others would be interested in this extract from Brother Marsh's remarks at that conference as recorded in Journal of Discourses 5:206-210:

If there are any among this people who should ever apostatize and do as I have done, prepare your backs for a good whipping, if you are such as the Lord loves. But if you will take my advice, you will stand by the authorities; but if you go away and the Lord loves you as much as he did me, he will whip you back again....

Well, this is about the amount of my hypocrisy – I meddled with that which was not my business. But let me tell you, my brethren and friends, if you do not want to suffer in body and mind, as I have done – if there are any of you that have the seeds of apostacy [sic] in you, do not let them make their appearance, but nip that spirit in the bud; for it is misery and affliction in this world, and destruction in the world to come. I know that I was a very stiff-necked man, and I felt, for the first four or five years especially, that I would never return to the Church; but towards the latter part of the time, I began to wake up and to be sensible that I was being chastised by the Almighty; and I felt to realize the language of Jeremiah concerning Ephraim in the last days, where he says, “Is Ephraim my dear son?Is he a pleasant child? For since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still; therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy on him, said the Lord.”

Thinks I, this language suits my condition. I then thought, I will go back and see if the Lord will heal me, for I am of the seed of Ephraim, and I felt troubled from that day, and my soul was vexed with the filthy conversation of the Sodomites.

[Uncle Dale]

Since you have been kind enough to provide this much detail, T-Shirt, perhaps Dale and others would be interested in this extract from Brother Marsh's remarks at that conference as recorded in Journal of Discourses 5:206-210: "...my soul was vexed with the filthy conversation of the Sodomites"

Dr. Sampson Avard, perhaps?

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, in the interest of precision, let me correct myself. The meeting in which Thomas B. Marsh spoke in Salt Lake City was not held in the Tabernacle, as I said earlier, but in the Bowery, according to the J of D transcription. Presumably, the Tabernacle had not yet been erected.

Also, Brigham Young's comments on that occasion indicate that Marsh desired to be baptized again in Salt Lake City, having already been re-baptized in Nebraska.

[Uncle Dale]

By the way, in the interest of precision, let me correct myself. The meeting in which Thomas B. Marsh spoke in Salt Lake City was not held in the Tabernacle, as I said earlier, but in the Bowery, according to the J of D transcription. Presumably, the Tabernacle had not yet been erected.

Also, Brigham Young's comments on that occasion indicate that Marsh desired to be baptized again in Salt Lake City, having already been re-baptized in Nebraska.

Well then, that gives me a "window of opportunity" between 1838 and 1857 to question the fellow,

(as I had originally proposed) about whether Joseph Smith, Jr. knew anything about the Danites while

the Saints were in Missouri.

I am working here upon the supposition that Marsh would have spoken more candidly about his

personal knowledge of late 1830s events during his "apostate years" than after re-joining the LDS.

But I may be wrong about that.

Where I know that I am not wrong, is when I say that Latter Day Saints will typically refuse to

listen to historical reports from people who have left the Church. Now and then I run onto some

exceptions -- Alex Baugh is a refreshing example among LDS scholars of the Missouri period --

but most Mormons only want to hear their history as it is reported by observant members of

the Church.

Which is more or less where I came into this particular thread.

UD

.

[Scott Lloyd]

Dr. Sampson Avard, perhaps?

UD

He didn't mention Avard.

He did say, however:

I have frequently wanted to know how my apostacy [sic] began, and I have come to the conclusion that I must have lost the Spirit of the Lord out of my heart.

The next question is, "How and when did you lose the Spirit?" I became jealous of the Prophet, and then I saw double, and overlooked everything that was right, and spent all my time in looking for the evil; and then, when the Devil began to lead me, it was easy for the carnal mind to rise up, which is anger, jealousy, and wrath. I could feel it within me; I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, and I thought I saw a beam in brother Joseph's eye, but it was nothing but a mote, and my own eye was filled with the beam."

[Scott Lloyd]

Well then, that gives me a "window of opportunity" between 1838 and 1857 to question the fellow,

(as I had originally proposed) about whether Joseph Smith, Jr. knew anything about the Danites while

the Saints were in Missouri.

I am working here upon the supposition that Marsh would have spoken more candidly about his

personal knowledge of late 1830s events during his "apostate years" than after re-joining the LDS.

But I may be wrong about that.

Yes, that is a distinct possibility (your being wrong, that is).

It is just as likely that during his "apostate years" his "personal knowledge" would be tainted by the "anger, jealously and wrath" to which he confessed in Salt Lake City (see my prior post).

Where I know that I am not wrong, is when I say that Latter Day Saints will typically refuse to

listen to historical reports from people who have left the Church. Now and then I run onto some

exceptions -- Alex Baugh is a refreshing example among LDS scholars of the Missouri period --

but most Mormons only want to hear their history as it is reported by observant members of

the Church.

I don't know how you would quantify such an assertion, but in the absence of documentation, I don't feel obliged to accept it.

I think what gives Latter-day (note the hyphen and lower-case d) Saints heartburn is polemical comments from critics who have no such "personal knowledge" but pick and choose and ellipsize their source material (or, worse, uncritically cut and paste it from others who have previously done so) in a way that's just as deceptive as what they accuse the "sanitizing" Mormons of doing.

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, that is a distinct possibility (your being wrong, that is).

It is just as likely that during his "apostate years" his "personal knowledge" would be tainted by the "anger, jealously and wrath" to which he confessed in Salt Lake City (see my prior post).

I don't know how you would quantify such an assertion, but in the absence of documentation, I don't feel obliged to accept it.

I think what gives Latter-day (note the hyphen and lower-case d) Saints heartburn is polemical comments from critics who have no such "personal knowledge" but pick and choose and ellipsize their source material (or, worse, uncritically cut and paste it) in a way that's just as deceptive as what they accuse the "sanitizing" Mormons of doing.

You see it all from inside the bubble of your group's experience.

I see it all from a different perspective, of course.

So ----- at the very least ----- perhaps there is some value in our each telling how we see things,

and exchanging those views. That way, if I quote you on something or another, we at least have

a record of what you really did say to me (and not just what I might accuse of you having said).

A slight step in the right direction -- I hope.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

You see it all from inside the bubble of your group's experience.

I see. I'm seeing things from inside a bubble. Subtle insult is noted.

I see it all from a different perspective, of course.

But not, thankfully, from inside some contemptible "bubble."

I bow to your superior intellect.

[T-Shirt]

I see it all from a different perspective, of course.

But still a bubble, nonetheless.

T-Shirt

[Uncle Dale]

But still a bubble, nonetheless.

T-Shirt

My bubble is larger than Bro. Lloyd's bubble -- but an Evangelical Christian or a mainstream Protestant,

or a Jewish observer would conclude that we are all in the same latter day bath water together.

Uncle "hey, did somebody just throw out the baby?..." Dale

.

[Alf O'Mega]

Where I know that I am not wrong, is when I say that Latter Day Saints will typically refuse to listen to historical reports from people who have left the Church.

. . . Latter-day (note the hyphen and lower-case d) Saints . . .

Uncle Dale is using the correct capitalization and punctuation for his branch of Mormonism: the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

On the topic of the thread, I'm encouraged by trends toward more openness, but the main problem I see is that Latter-day Saints actually do get served a large dose of Official Church History from their curricula, and most therefore do not recognize how underinformed they are. Historical narrative is central to Mormon doctrine. Many modern Saints figure that they got their history from the best, most honest institution they know, so any extra history they might seek out would be likely to include elements of dishonesty and disaffection. They feel safer getting it from official sources who wear the hazmat suits on their behalf to rescue the nuggets of trustworthy fact from a roiling sea of historical calumny and distortion. And so why bother?

And actually, since I recognize that most people in any population are genuinely, profoundly uninterested in real history at all, the historical insularity of the Latter-day Saint tradition doesn't make any difference for most Saints. I am, however, disturbed on behalf of people like my Dad, who is a man of great intellect and curiosity but who has banked and abbreviated his inquiry into Church history. I know how I was raised, and when my curiosity took me too far afield, he usually wouldn't warn me away by saying that there were dangerous things out thereâ??things that could damage my testimonyâ??but he would caution me about wasted time. How much better would it be to read the Book of Mormon again than to chase such trivia. I wasn't kept out of forbidden territory so much by any explicit prohibition as by an exhortation to tend to the duties of home. Put your spiritual house in order and you will be too busy to spend much time in dangerous territory.

I don't think that my upbringing was an aberration.

[Scott Lloyd]

My bubble is larger than Bro. Lloyd's bubble ....

I've been thinking about this. It is a curious sort of "bubble" wherein one regards adherence to and/or reconciliation with The Church of Jesus Christ as detrimental to credibility but does not so view a source's self-acknowledged "anger, jealousy and wrath" associated with his apostasy. Could it be that the critics and revisionist historians are at least as myopic in their selection of trustworthy sources as the (in their view) benighted Mormons on whom they train their contempt?

At the Mormon History Association Conference in May, Professor Ronald Walker no doubt ruffled some feathers when he suggested it is time the revisionist historians be scrutinized with the same degree of vigor and rigor as that with which they have been challenging so-called "faithful" history.

High time, I'd say.

[HiJolly]

Uncle Dale is using the correct capitalization and punctuation for his branch of Mormonism: the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

On the topic of the thread, I'm encouraged by trends toward more openness, but the main problem I see is that Latter-day Saints actually do get served a large dose of Official Church History from their curricula, and most therefore do not recognize how underinformed they are. Historical narrative is central to Mormon doctrine. Many modern Saints figure that they got their history from the best, most honest institution they know, so any extra history they might seek out would be likely to include elements of dishonesty and disaffection. They feel safer getting it from official sources who wear the hazmat suits on their behalf to rescue the nuggets of trustworthy fact from a roiling sea of historical calumny and distortion. And so why bother?

And actually, since I recognize that most people in any population are genuinely, profoundly uninterested in real history at all, the historical insularity of the Latter-day Saint tradition doesn't make any difference for most Saints. I am, however, disturbed on behalf of people like my Dad, who is a man of great intellect and curiosity but who has banked and abbreviated his inquiry into Church history. I know how I was raised, and when my curiosity took me too far afield, he usually wouldn't warn me away by saying that there were dangerous things out thereâ??things that could damage my testimonyâ??but he would caution me about wasted time. How much better would it be to read the Book of Mormon again than to chase such trivia. I wasn't kept out of forbidden territory so much by any explicit prohibition as by an exhortation to tend to the duties of home. Put your spiritual house in order and you will be too busy to spend much time in dangerous territory.

I don't think that my upbringing was an aberration.

This was / is my experience as well. Good points!

HiJolly

[Scott Lloyd]

Uncle Dale is using the correct capitalization and punctuation for his branch of Mormonism: the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

But if my understanding is correct, he was referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Moreover, it is also my understanding that "his branch of Mormonism" no longer uses the title "Latter Day Saints." In publishing, it is customary to use the title that an organization gives itself in the way that title is written by the organization. And customary rules of punctuation call for the use of a hyphen in compound modifiers such as latter-day.

But this is not a hill I wish to die on. If I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't even have brought it up. Therefore, I will grant that he -- and you -- may punctuate and capitalize the phrase as either of you wishes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am, however, disturbed on behalf of people like my Dad, who is a man of great intellect and curiosity but who has banked and abbreviated his inquiry into Church history. I know how I was raised, and when my curiosity took me too far afield, he usually wouldn't warn me away by saying that there were dangerous things out thereâ??things that could damage my testimonyâ??but he would caution me about wasted time. How much better would it be to read the Book of Mormon again than to chase such trivia. I wasn't kept out of forbidden territory so much by any explicit prohibition as by an exhortation to tend to the duties of home. Put your spiritual house in order and you will be too busy to spend much time in dangerous territory.

I don't think that my upbringing was an aberration.

I would be interested to hear your dad's side of the story.

[Uncle Dale]

But if my understanding is correct, he was referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Moreover, it is also my understanding that "his branch of Mormonism" no longer uses the title "Latter Day Saints." In publishing, it is customary to use the title that an organization gives itself in the way that title is written.

But this is not a hill I wish to die on. If I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't even have brought it up. Therefore, I will grant that he -- and you -- may punctuate and capitalize the phrase as either of you wishes.

You have misunderstood me here.

I use the term "Latter Day Saints" as the umbrella designation for all the societies, groups and sects

which have evolved out of the "Church of Christ," as founded in Manchester, NY on April 6, 1830.

This is in keeping with early orthography -- if you go back and look at published examples of the

church name, you will see the "Latter-day" designation evolving out of occasional use in Nauvoo,

to the normative useage in Utah during the 1850s and 1860s.

Let's say you and I were compiling a sociological reference book on the various Methodist sects of

the past and present -- what would we call them all as a distinct group, separate from Baptists, etc.?

The same question arises when we attempt to speak of our own restoration movement, with all its

various and sundry related groups.

That is why I say that "my bubble" is greater than your "bubble" -- because I look at the Latter Day

Saints' restoration movement as a socio-religious phenomenon and not as a single church. In my

view of things, the Mormons are a sub-set of a larger group, historically called Latter Day Saints.

As I understand your viewpoint, we other "splinter groups" are a tiny abberation, consigned to the

rubbish bin of false-authority-claimers, cast over to one very tiny and untidy corner of the "bubble."

My task has been to convince you that we are brothers within sub-sects of a single denomination.

I fear that I have failed utterly in that task.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

You have misunderstood me here.

I use the term "Latter Day Saints" as the umbrella designation for all the societies, groups and sects

which have evolved out of the "Church of Christ," as founded in Manchester, NY on April 6, 1830.

This is in keeping with early orthography -- if you go back and look at published examples of the

church name, you will see the "Latter-day" designation evolving out of occasional use in Nauvoo,

to the normative useage in Utah during the 1850s and 1860s.

Let's say you and I were compiling a sociological reference book on the various Methodist sects of

the past and present -- what would we call them all as a distinct group, separate from Baptists, etc.?

The same question arises when we attempt to speak of our own restoration movement, with all its

various and sundry related groups.

That is why I say that "my bubble" is greater than your "bubble" -- because I look at the Latter Day

Saints' restoration movement as a socio-religious phenomenon and not as a single church. In my

view of things, the Mormons are a sub-set of a larger group, historically called Latter Day Saints.

As I understand your viewpoint, we other "splinter groups" are a tiny abberation, consigned to the

rubbish bin of false-authority-claimers, cast over to one very tiny and untidy corner of the "bubble."

My task has been to convince you that we are brothers within sub-sects of a single denomination.

I fear that I have failed utterly in that task.

UD

A prominent dictionary defines denomination, in this context, as "a particular religious body, with a specific name, organization, etc." What religious body with a specific name and organization encompasses The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all splinter groups arising therefrom over the years, great or small, law-abiding or lawless, under one umbrella? There is none. Therefore, this is a false characterization. I'll grant that we might be considered brothers, but not as members of a denomination.

As to the orthography matter, as I said, this is a point I don't wish to press, except to call your attention to an addition to my post which you may have missed, that being that customary rules of punctuation today call for the use of a hyphen in compound modifiers.

Did you see my post responding to your point apropos of Thomas Marsh's credibility before/after his reconciliation to the Church? I fear you may have missed it, as you did not address it. If you do not choose to address it, that is quite all right.

[Uncle Dale]

A prominent dictionary defines denomination, in this context, as "a particular religious body, with a specific name, organization, etc." What religious body with a specific name and organization encompasses The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all splinter groups arising therefrom over the years, great or small, law-abiding or lawless, under one umbrella? There is none. Therefore, this is a false characterization. I'll grant that we might be considered brothers, but not as members of a denomination.

OK then, let's fall back upon the term "Latter Day Saints' Restoration Movement" -- which at least

will distinguish us from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (also arguably comprised of

several denominations or sub-sects today).

I have on my desk a 1992 volume entitled "The Restoration Movement...," with contributors such

as Klaus J. Hansen, Larry Porter, Max H. Parkin, T. Edgar Lyon, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton,

etc. And I recall singing "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" with some of those same LDS

brothers in Jackson County not too many years ago.

When they gave oral presentations, several of the LDS brethren referred to us all as "Latter Day

Saints," and there were continual references to our "restoration movement." Same thing at Lamoni

Iowa a few years earlier, when I flew out to Kansas City with Dr. Bitton for a similar get-together

in nearby Iowa ---- only the hymn we then sang together was "Redeemer of Israel."

So then -- we are not in a denomination together -- but in some sort of historical process, eh?

As to the orthography matter, as I said, this is a point I don't wish to press, except to call your attention to an addition to my post which you may have missed, that being that customary rules of punctuation today call for the use of a hyphen in compound modifiers.

Did you see my post responding to your point apropos of Thomas Marsh's credibility before/after his reconciliation to the Church? I fear you may have missed it, as you did not address it. If you do not choose to address it, that is quite all right.

You said it better than I could have done -- why gilt the lillies?

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

OK then, let's fall back upon the term "Latter Day Saints' Restoration Movement" -- which at least

will distinguish us from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (also arguably comprised of

several denominations or sub-sects today).

I have on my desk a 1992 volume entitled "The Restoration Movement...," with contributors such

as Klaus J. Hansen, Larry Porter, Max H. Parkin, T. Edgar Lyon, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton,

etc. And I recall singing "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" with some of those same LDS

brothers in Jackson County not too many years ago.

When they gave oral presentations, several of the LDS brethren referred to us all as "Latter Day

Saints," and there were continual references to our "restoration movement." Same thing at Lamoni

Iowa a few years earlier, when I flew out to Kansas City with Dr. Bitton for a similar get-together

in nearby Iowa ---- only the hymn we then sang together was "Redeemer of Israel."

So then -- we are not in a denomination together -- but in some sort of historical process, eh?

I will grant that.