White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[selek]

I'm kind of stuck Wade, to be honest.

I want the truth, but I don't know if I will be satisfied when I get it.

I'm not sure I will recognize it, because sometimes I don't feel so good when I learn upsetting things.

I want to believe and maintain my faith, and I can't help but think that all this looking around me is just going to make things worse, not better. But I don't want to stop digging yet. Does that mean I'm not humble enough?

Humility does not mean "meekly accepting only what you are given". By all means, keep digging- just realize you're going to find a lot of dirt before you reach the gold.

[Silver Dragonfly]

Humility does not mean "meekly accepting only what you are given". By all means, keep digging- just realize you're going to find a lot of dirt before you reach the gold.

Selek, thank you for the PM, and your continued helpfulness.

I wonder if you could recommend a good source for the polygamy information, perhaps something that can put it into greater context so I can better understand?

[BishopRic]

I'm kind of stuck Wade, to be honest.

I want the truth, but I don't know if I will be satisfied when I get it.

I'm not sure I will recognize it, because sometimes I don't feel so good when I learn upsetting things.

I want to believe and maintain my faith, and I can't help but think that all this looking around me is just going to make things worse, not better. But I don't want to stop digging yet. Does that mean I'm not humble enough?

I don't think so...it means you have a functioning brain!

I like your comment about not feeling good when you learn upsetting things. This is normal. When things "show up" that conflict with your expectations, or established paradigm, you will feel confused. When a basic math student is given calculus, he will feel upset and confused. Does that mean calculus is "not true?" No, it means he doesn't understand it yet...but with time and "line upon line," he will understand it later.

This "stupor" occurred frequently for many of us exmos along our discovery. It WAS painful, and we were often faced with the conflict of disappointing family and friends. Ultimately, many of us concluded it was more important to be true to ourselves than to others.

Whichever you find, I wish you peace.

[Silver Dragonfly]

I think you've been given the typical apologist' response so far. If it satisfies you, I wish you the best.

There is a different approach to this (and many other challenging) questions you probably have. The "system" you have been advised to follow is akin to doing a study on a new medication, with the prescriber telling you what effects you should feel when taking the meds. If you don't feel that way, it is a problem with how you "prepared" for the trial...or what other foods, etc. you took. But it was something you did incorrectly.

In medicine, we do trials as much as possible using a system called "double-blind." We've learned through experience that when a person has an expectation of what they should experience, they are more likely to get that experience...and if the "prescriber" also knows what should be experienced, there is an inherent bias to the outcome. In a double-blind study, neither the prescriber nor the subject know if they are getting the actual medication...so bias is effectively eliminated.

If you approach religion similarly, you might come to a different conclusion if you go into it with no expectation other than to use objective reasoning. To me, this is the only effective way to seek truth.

In Mormonism, there is the charge to read, pray, and seek the "Spirit" to get your answers. This approach is not objective, as you enter into the process with an expectation of what/who the Spirit is, "scriptures" are quoted indicating this is how "God" suggests finding truth. So it is assumed that God's nature/mind is already known...and he wants you to find his truth by searching, etc.

If we enter the search with all possibilities on the table; ie, God may not have suggested this method at all, that "scriptures" may really be written by man, rather than inspired by God, that "Satan" may be man-made, and most importantly, that a "feeling" may not be the best way to find truth, I submit your findings may be different.

Do you believe that Scriptures are written by man, and that Satan is man-made?

With respect to Joseph's claims, consider the possibility that what he did may not have been "inspired by God." Maybe he was the con man many believe he was -- or maybe he was a true prophet. Ask for truth, not confirmation of a pre-supposed conclusion. Be open to all possibility.

And if God didn't suggest this method for discovering truth, then how else am I going to know it? Who do I ask if not God?

It is possible that Joseph married many women, some married to other men, by using his position to satisfy personal desires. Or maybe not...but I suggest that when you take the church recommended paradigm out of the search, your answers may be different.

I know that whoever I speak to at church will want me to reach the same conclusion that they have, and that they will try to guide me towards that end. If I don't come to the same conclusion, won't my Bishop just tell me to study more and pray until I get the right answer? I keep getting the feeling that the adversary is working on me with confusion and fear, but I just want somebody to tell me the flat-out truth instead of telling me to go find it myself and pray about it. Does that sound rebellious? I'm kinda freaking out here...

Or maybe it's really Satan after all!

Nice one, I might sound like a nutter, but growing up in the church (well from 13 on) I have been wary of letting my questions out, because I don't want to be seen as a doubter. I think that some people might be afraid to let me continue teaching their kids in Primary if they knew I was having some troubles accepting polygamy. Don't even get me started on Eternal Progression and sharing my husband with multiple wives, I can't even think about it without getting upset. I guess it's just my jealous nature.

[selek]

Selek, thank you for the PM, and your continued helpfulness.

I wonder if you could recommend a good source for the polygamy information, perhaps something that can put it into greater context so I can better understand?

I'm not sure I can recommend any books, but there are several on line articles on the topic I would recommend:

Suzanne Armitage, An Introduction to an 1886 Women's Conference on Polygamy

Article on Plural Marriage In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Mormonism 201- A rebuttal to Critic's attacks on Joseph Smith over polygamy and other issues

And an excellent primer on Polyandry

As to the idea of having to share your husband for eternity, don't feel alone. My once-and-future bride has similar issues with the concept. Please remember that no one will be forced to live a covenant they are not prepared to accept, or are not capable of abiding. The Lord is eminently fair in his judgements, and and supremely patient and loving. We don't know the precise arrangements we will be living on the far side of the veil (despite a lot of speculation)- only that they are ordained by God in his wisdom and that he will help us to prepare for them.

[BishopRic]

Do you believe that Scriptures are written by man, and that Satan is man-made?

Yes I do...but I could be wrong. Since living my life with this "belief," historical events have become easier to understand. Or maybe that's Satan speaking to me....

And if God didn't suggest this method for discovering truth, then how else am I going to know it? Who do I ask if not God?

I'm not suggesting not to ask "God." Just be open to the possibility that "God" may be different than the Mormon God, or even the Christian God. I believe "he" manifests uniquely to each person.

I know that whoever I speak to at church will want me to reach the same conclusion that they have, and that they will try to guide me towards that end. If I don't come to the same conclusion, won't my Bishop just tell me to study more and pray until I get the right answer?

That's what they usually say...because that is what they were told. It's a whole system that has worked for them for a long time. Funny thing, if you go to another culture, their system works for them too.

I

keep getting the feeling that the adversary is working on me with confusion and fear, but I just want somebody to tell me the flat-out truth instead of telling me to go find it myself and pray about it. Does that sound rebellious? I'm kinda freaking out here...

Consider the possibility that you are feeling what you are because that is what you were told you would feel.

Nice one, I might sound like a nutter, but growing up in the church (well from 13 on) I have been wary of letting my questions out, because I don't want to be seen as a doubter.

Yes, that is what many would have you think. At least for me, after much turmoil, what others tought of me became less important than living the truth.

I think that some people might be afraid to let me continue teaching their kids in Primary if they knew I was having some troubles accepting polygamy.

That might happen...oh well!

Don't even get me started on Eternal Progression and sharing my husband with multiple wives, I can't even think about it without getting upset. I guess it's just my jealous nature

You're in good company! Many that I know started their "quest for truth" when they felt as you about polygamy. Seems the best excuse we get about it is "the Old Testament prophets did it," and "we'll understand God's reasoning in the next life."

A bit weak for me!

Good luck!

[selek]

Nice one, I might sound like a nutter, but growing up in the church (well from 13 on) I have been wary of letting my questions out, because I don't want to be seen as a doubter.

SD, faith is, in many respects, like a muscle. Which muscle is stronger, the one that has been tested and used or the one that has never stretched its limits?

You make a sword (or any other high strength instrument) by sticking the metal in a fire and hammering it. So, too, must faith be tempered, lest it break at the first real test.

I think that some people might be afraid to let me continue teaching their kids in Primary if they knew I was having some troubles accepting polygamy.

I think you're both right and wrong. You're right because there will always be those eager to judge. You're wrong, I think because you're assuming that the other members don't doubt. We all have doubts and fears and points of doctrine or belief that are harder for us to accept.

[Silver Dragonfly]

SD, faith is, in many respects, like a muscle. Which muscle is stronger, the one that has been tested and used or the one that has never stretched its limits?

You make a sword (or any other high strength instrument) by sticking the metal in a fire and hammering it. So, too, must faith be tempered, lest it break at the first real test.

I think you're both right and wrong. You're right because there will always be those eager to judge. You're wrong, I think because you're assuming that the other members don't doubt. We all have doubts and fears and points of doctrine or belief that are harder for us to accept.

I know of some people in the ward that will definitely judge me, and one of them happens to be the Bishop's wife. So, I'm a little worried that word will get out if I go to the Bishop with my worries, and if I start seeing him on a regular basis, she's the kind of woman that wants to know why. She'll ask me herself, or offer herself as my personal counselor, (she has done this to other women). Kind of a barracuda.

I always thought of people who doubt the church are the ones who are inactive, not the people who I sit next to in Sacrament meeting. I guess I have just lost touch with them because I am spending so much time in Primary with the kids. I don't get to hear anyone express doubts in classes like Gospel Doctrine. Maybe I should ask to be released from Primary so I can go back to GD class and get some of my questions answered...

My mom still doesn't want to talk about polygamy at all, since I brought up Joseph's involvement in it. I feel the need to express my thoughts to her, but I don't want to cause her anger and distrust. It's so hard when family is involved.

[mms]

Silver Dragonfly,

You can believe this or not. I am still not sure what the consensus is on this board re whether I am telling the truth, but regardless, it is the truth.

I have spent the last months to a year learning all kinds of things re Church history that I had not known. I am sure many of those things are the same things you are learning. I served a full-time mission and have served in various Priesthood leadership callings on the Stake and Ward levels (I choose not to be specific for my own, very good, reasons).

My faith has been shaken, certainly. I want to focus on your question about whether to talk to others or your Bishop about your concerns. Let me tell you my experience. For example, the Book of Abraham issues are among the most faith-challenging to me. I mentioned the issue to some freinds--life long members of the Church, graduated form BYU, full-time missions, etc. and not a single one of them knew anything about the papyrus or any of the issues surrounding the "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Some of those friends decided to research the issue and they are now having struggles similar to mine.

If, indeed, the Church is true, then it was not worth it to raise the issue with them because they now doubt and are struggling as I am. If the Church is not true, then some would argue I did them a favor (others would still argue that they were better off in their ignorance).

So, I do not speak to people about these issues, because the likelihood is that people will doubt and struggle and lose sleep, etc. Some of the apologists, here, argue on the one hand that the issues are minor and nothing that should cause doubt and, on the other, would advise you not to talk to others about it because in their hearts and minds, they know it will cause doubt and that most members do not know about these issues.

Because I do not speak to others about these issues and because I am not interested in talking to exmos or postmos or newordermos at other boards, as I am still an active, practicing member of the LDS Church and intend to remain such, I spend time posting here so that self-righteous, self-appointed geniuses can tell me how stupid I am for not knowing that JS married other people's wives.

I did, however, speak with my Bishop, whom I know quite well, about my concerns. His words were essentially that he does not know anything about the issues -- readily admitted that he was not aware of several issues related to polygamy, polyandry or anything else causing me concern. He basically had no idea what to say, except that he was now worried about me. I think, in retrospect, rather than become another worry for him, I probably should have skipped that conversation. However, I felt that as leader of the ward, and because of my previous leadership positions and the hint I had received that other leadership positions were in my near future, he should know.

At this juncture in your quest, I do not see value in talking to others unless they are knowledgable about the issues and you are fairly confident that you will not cause them doubt and concern that presently does not exist.

Best to you.

I don't get to hear anyone express doubts in classes like Gospel Doctrine. Maybe I should ask to be released from Primary so I can go back to GD class and get some of my questions answered...

You will not hear anyone express doubts in Gospel Doctrine. But you may rest assured that there are a number sitting around you each Sunday that have had or do have similar concerns.

[Pahoran]

Do you believe that Scriptures are written by man, and that Satan is man-made?

And if God didn't suggest this method for discovering truth, then how else am I going to know it? Who do I ask if not God?

Who indeed?

I know that whoever I speak to at church will want me to reach the same conclusion that they have, and that they will try to guide me towards that end.

This is probably true. It is also true of the people you talk to out of Church as well. It's just that the ones out of Church may be a little less up-front about that fact.

Note that they started off with you by trying to poison the well against the defenders. It is true that some of us have indeed come down on them like a ton of bricks. We have no reason to do so with you. Unlike them, you strike me as a someone genuinely looking for answers.

There are some people here whose transparent cover stories make their participation in a "White-washed History And Full Disclosure" thread something of a joke.

If I don't come to the same conclusion, won't my Bishop just tell me to study more and pray until I get the right answer? I keep getting the feeling that the adversary is working on me with confusion and fear, but I just want somebody to tell me the flat-out truth instead of telling me to go find it myself and pray about it. Does that sound rebellious? I'm kinda freaking out here...

There's no need to freak out. The nice thing about historical questions is that there isn't any pressing urgency with them. You can take as much time as you need, and delve as deeply as you like, to study them out and learn the whole story. No-one is going to ask you to live this principle in your lifetime. The only people who would urge you to rush to an early conclusion are those who want you to reach the wrong decision, and they know you are more likely to do that if they can rush you.

Nice one, I might sound like a nutter, but growing up in the church (well from 13 on) I have been wary of letting my questions out, because I don't want to be seen as a doubter. I think that some people might be afraid to let me continue teaching their kids in Primary if they knew I was having some troubles accepting polygamy.

I don't think they would, to be honest. I know I wouldn't.

After all, we don't have to accept polygamy now. In fact, I'd be much more worried if my sons' primary teacher was an enthusiastic polygamy advocate. It's an interesting fact of our history, but it has nothing to do with what I want my children to grow up planning or aspiring to do.

Don't even get me started on Eternal Progression and sharing my husband with multiple wives, I can't even think about it without getting upset. I guess it's just my jealous nature.

If, in the next life, you find that you and your husband are both admitted to the Celestial Kingdom, and you are asked to share him with someone else, then that will be the time to worry about it.

For now, Plural Marriage is an interesting feature of the history of the Church. The Church does not teach it because it has no relevance to our salvation, or the Church's mission. But that does not mean that the Church is trying to hide it from anybody; it most assuredly is not, and if anyone tries to tell you that it is, then you may know that that person is a false accuser, and you have no reason whatsoever to trust any of their assertions.

Note that, as with any historical topic, there is a whole lot more to it than can be summed up in a few sentences or paragraphs. The totality of the documented information on it is enormous, and the Church's critics cite or quote hardly any of it. Rather, they want you to think of the topic in nothing but broad brush strokes.

I ask you to keep always in mind the fact that, as someone living in the 21st century, you are a child of your culture. As such, it is much harder to question its assumptions than it is to find fault with long-dead people, if for no other reason that we take the assumptions of our contemporary culture so much for granted that we hardly even notice them any more. But they did not share our culture, nor its assumptions, and we ought not to assume that because what they did was different, it must necessarily be wrong. The true student of history is always and constantly challenged to re-examine her own assumptions and cultural mores, because history is constantly demonstrating that they are neither universal nor unquestionable. The old saying is and remains true: "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there."

The 21st century is merely the way things are now; it is by no means the best of all possible worlds. In order for it to become so, we would have to sacrifice a whole lot of things, including but not limited to a great many of our more cherished cultural values. And as far as I can tell, this has been true in every period of history.

Except perhaps one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[AKS]

I ask you to keep always in mind the fact that, as someone living in the 21st century, you are a child of your culture. As such, it is much harder to question its assumptions than it is to find fault with long-dead people, if for no other reason that we take the assumptions of our contemporary culture so much for granted that we hardly even notice them any more. But they did not share our culture, nor its assumptions, and we ought not to assume that because what they did was different, it must necessarily be wrong. The true student of history is always and constantly challenged to re-examine her own assumptions and cultural mores, because history is constantly demonstrating that they are neither universal nor unquestionable. The old saying is and remains true: "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there."

Regards,

Pahoran

Garbage. Polygamy was LESS accepted in Joseph Smiths time, not more.

[Pahoran]

Garbage. Polygamy was LESS accepted in Joseph Smiths time, not more.

Hey, Garbage-boy: point out exactly where I claimed it was MORE accepted in Joseph's time, please.

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Silver Dragonfly]

Yes I do...but I could be wrong. Since living my life with this "belief," historical events have become easier to understand. Or maybe that's Satan speaking to me....

I'm not suggesting not to ask "God." Just be open to the possibility that "God" may be different than the Mormon God, or even the Christian God. I believe "he" manifests uniquely to each person.

That's what they usually say...because that is what they were told. It's a whole system that has worked for them for a long time. Funny thing, if you go to another culture, their system works for them too.

Consider the possibility that you are feeling what you are because that is what you were told you would feel.

I was told that I would feel confused and darkness would come over me and I wouldn't be able to think clearly. But, on the other hand, fairwiki came right out and admitted that Joseph had many wives, some as young as 14. That didn't make me feel any better either, and that was from a pro-Mormon site.

Yes, that is what many would have you think. At least for me, after much turmoil, what others tought of me became less important than living the truth.

My mom would be very upset if she knew I was still chasing this thought around on the Internet. In her eyes, just being out here is tempting Satan to lead me away from the truth. If that is true, then why are there Mormons on the Internet defending the church? Why answer it at all? If it wasn't for their defensive essays, I wouldn't have learned about Joseph's polygamy from Pro-Mormons, and I would have gone on thinking it was just Anti-Mormon lies, like my mom does.

It's very disturbing to find out that Joseph was married to a 14 year old girl, even if he may not have had sex with her, its doubtful that he would have left her a virgin forever, or allowed her to marry someone her own age eventually. If he had lived, wouldn't he have eventually consummated the marriage to her in order to fulfill the commandment of bringing forth righteous seed? And something else I can't get past is that she could have done this with her future husband eventually, did it have to be Joseph Smith's baby in order to fulfill the commandment? I just don't get the point of 'reserving' a fourteen year old girl for future fulfillment of a commandment when there surely were plenty of women Joseph's own age to procreate with weren't there? My own daughter is almost 14 and I can't fathom it.

You're in good company! Many that I know started their "quest for truth" when they felt as you about polygamy. Seems the best excuse we get about it is "the Old Testament prophets did it," and "we'll understand God's reasoning in the next life."

I don't want to sound mean, BishopRic, but I am honestly looking for the church's answer. I'm going to talk to the Bishop about this first and see where this takes me. Thanks for your input though. I never thought of the possibility that God might operate differently. I just don't know enough about that yet to give a proper answer.

[Silver Dragonfly]

Who indeed?

This is probably true. It is also true of the people you talk to out of Church as well. It's just that the ones out of Church may be a little less up-front about that fact.

Note that they started off with you by trying to poison the well against the defenders. It is true that some of us have indeed come down on them like a ton of bricks. We have no reason to do so with you. Unlike them, you strike me as a someone genuinely looking for answers.

There are some people here whose transparent cover stories make their participation in a "White-washed History And Full Disclosure" thread something of a joke.

There's no need to freak out. The nice thing about historical questions is that there isn't any pressing urgency with them. You can take as much time as you need, and delve as deeply as you like, to study them out and learn the whole story. No-one is going to ask you to live this principle in your lifetime. The only people who would urge you to rush to an early conclusion are those who want you to reach the wrong decision, and they know you are more likely to do that if they can rush you.

I don't think they would, to be honest. I know I wouldn't.

After all, we don't have to accept polygamy now. In fact, I'd be much more worried if my sons' primary teacher was an enthusiastic polygamy advocate. It's an interesting fact of our history, but it has nothing to do with what I want my children to grow up planning or aspiring to do.

If, in the next life, you find that you and your husband are both admitted to the Celestial Kingdom, and you are asked to share him with someone else, then that will be the time to worry about it.

For now, Plural Marriage is an interesting feature of the history of the Church. The Church does not teach it because it has no relevance to our salvation, or the Church's mission. But that does not mean that the Church is trying to hide it from anybody; it most assuredly is not, and if anyone tries to tell you that it is, then you may know that that person is a false accuser, and you have no reason whatsoever to trust any of their assertions.

Note that, as with any historical topic, there is a whole lot more to it than can be summed up in a few sentences or paragraphs. The totality of the documented information on it is enormous, and the Church's critics cite or quote hardly any of it. Rather, they want you to think of the topic in nothing but broad brush strokes.

I ask you to keep always in mind the fact that, as someone living in the 21st century, you are a child of your culture. As such, it is much harder to question its assumptions than it is to find fault with long-dead people, if for no other reason that we take the assumptions of our contemporary culture so much for granted that we hardly even notice them any more. But they did not share our culture, nor its assumptions, and we ought not to assume that because what they did was different, it must necessarily be wrong. The true student of history is always and constantly challenged to re-examine her own assumptions and cultural mores, because history is constantly demonstrating that they are neither universal nor unquestionable. The old saying is and remains true: "The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there."

The 21st century is merely the way things are now; it is by no means the best of all possible worlds. In order for it to become so, we would have to sacrifice a whole lot of things, including but not limited to a great many of our more cherished cultural values. And as far as I can tell, this has been true in every period of history.

Except perhaps one.

Regards,

Pahoran

Like a warm blanket, Pahoran. Lots to consider here in your post. Thank you for taking the time to help me with my questions. I have read many of your posts, and I am glad that I am not drawing any contempt or hostility for airing out some questions here. It is very useful and helpful to hear from both sides, especially if it can be done calmly and clearly, without name calling. Makes me feel loads better.

[Silver Dragonfly]

Silver Dragonfly,

You can believe this or not. I am still not sure what the consensus is on this board re whether I am telling the truth, but regardless, it is the truth.

I have spent the last months to a year learning all kinds of things re Church history that I had not known. I am sure many of those things are the same things you are learning. I served a full-time mission and have served in various Priesthood leadership callings on the Stake and Ward levels (I choose not to be specific for my own, very good, reasons).

My faith has been shaken, certainly. I want to focus on your question about whether to talk to others or your Bishop about your concerns. Let me tell you my experience. For example, the Book of Abraham issues are among the most faith-challenging to me. I mentioned the issue to some freinds--life long members of the Church, graduated form BYU, full-time missions, etc. and not a single one of them knew anything about the papyrus or any of the issues surrounding the "translation" of the Book of Abraham. Some of those friends decided to research the issue and they are now having struggles similar to mine.

CFR on the Book of Abraham issues? what exactly? I am not following you...

If, indeed, the Church is true, then it was not worth it to raise the issue with them because they now doubt and are struggling as I am. If the Church is not true, then some would argue I did them a favor (others would still argue that they were better off in their ignorance).

So, I do not speak to people about these issues, because the likelihood is that people will doubt and struggle and lose sleep, etc. Some of the apologists, here, argue on the one hand that the issues are minor and nothing that should cause doubt and, on the other, would advise you not to talk to others about it because in their hearts and minds, they know it will cause doubt and that most members do not know about these issues.

I haven't arrived at any conclusion that what I have learned would prove that the Church is not true. I am just having problems with not having learned about polygamy from the Church itself, although some might argue that I did learn it from the Church, just not in my ward. I wonder if I would be doing anybody a favor by causing anyone to have doubts like mine, I wouldn't wish it on anyone that's for sure. So I probably won't talk to anyone but the Bishop about them. I don't want anyone to call them stupid or ignorant because they don't know about these issues, though, and that's why I registered and spoke up in the first place. I don't think it's right to blame people like me for our lack of knowledge and claim that it was all there right in front of us all along, and we had every opportunity to learn about it if we had just made the effort to know. Some people do just accept the teachings at face value without putting any thought into it, because it shows that we are faithful members. Maybe that's wrong for people to do, but it does happen. And it seems the more easily the material is accepted and taught to others unquestioningly, the higher up the 'calling ladder' these faithful members go. I know lots of people who think it's cool to aspire to become the Bishop or the Relief Society President someday, and they fall all over themselves trying to impress the Stake Presidency when he comes to visit the ward. I don't play that game because I have my hands full already with teaching in Primary.

Because I do not speak to others about these issues and because I am not interested in talking to exmos or postmos or newordermos at other boards, as I am still an active, practicing member of the LDS Church and intend to remain such, I spend time posting here so that self-righteous, self-appointed geniuses can tell me how stupid I am for not knowing that JS married other people's wives.

I did, however, speak with my Bishop, whom I know quite well, about my concerns. His words were essentially that he does not know anything about the issues -- readily admitted that he was not aware of several issues related to polygamy, polyandry or anything else causing me concern. He basically had no idea what to say, except that he was now worried about me. I think, in retrospect, rather than become another worry for him, I probably should have skipped that conversation. However, I felt that as leader of the ward, and because of my previous leadership positions and the hint I had received that other leadership positions were in my near future, he should know.

At this juncture in your quest, I do not see value in talking to others unless they are knowledgable about the issues and you are fairly confident that you will not cause them doubt and concern that presently does not exist.

Who can I go to if even the Bishop doesn't know about these issues? I don't want to draw unnecessary attention to myself (by the Bishop's wife either). That's just the kind of thing that worries me, he won't have any answers and will condemn me for questioning in the first place. Now I don't know what to do. He seems smart enough to have dealt with these issues, but I have all this guilt for wanting to have answers to my questions.

You will not hear anyone express doubts in Gospel Doctrine. But you may rest assured that there are a number sitting around you each Sunday that have had or do have similar concerns.

I haven't found anyone and I'm a little leery of asking anyone so that they don't go running to the Bishop. I'm actually worried that my mom might beat me there and tell him I've been snooping around on the Internet and looking up all kinds of anti-Mormon lies about Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy. God, I feel like such a child, scared that I'm going to get tattled on! By my own mother, no less! It makes me wish I had never been to fairlds at all. Maybe I would have been better off in my ignorance, because I don't know if I can handle finding out the colorful history is different than our manuals tell us in church. But I can't unlearn it, can I?

[Pahoran]

CFR on the Book of Abraham issues? what exactly? I am not following you...

I honestly think it would be best for you to try to handle one issue at a time. One of the anti-Mormons' favourite tactics is to try to overwhelm you with the sheer volume of material. It's the old adage that, if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it just might stick. Particularly if you can throw it faster than anyone can hose it off.

That said, if you'd like to see a good summary of the Book of Abraham issues, have a look here.

I haven't found anyone and I'm a little leery of asking anyone so that they don't go running to the Bishop. I'm actually worried that my mom might beat me there and tell him I've been snooping around on the Internet and looking up all kinds of anti-Mormon lies about Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy. God, I feel like such a child, scared that I'm going to get tattled on! By my own mother, no less! It makes me wish I had never been to fairlds at all. Maybe I would have been better off in my ignorance, because I don't know if I can handle finding out the colorful history is different than our manuals tell us in church. But I can't unlearn it, can I?

You're right, you can't.

What I would suggest is that you tell the Bishop you are investigating these questions, and that you are trying to find the material from faithful sources. Mention that you are getting a bit of "noise" from the naysayers, but that you are trying to cut through that stuff. This will pre-empt any tattling.

BTW, regarding something you wrote earlier: the bishop's wife has no business asking you what you are seeing him for. If women need assistance from the bishop, they don't need his wife's approval. If they need it from other sisters, that's why we have Relief Society Presidents called and set apart for that purpose. I sustain them wholeheartedly (being married to one, I'd better.) The fact that a bishop's wife will boldly do what no RS President's husband would dare, shows that, contra Katherine, one of the biggest problems with LDS culture is that it is far too matriarchal.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Drewm777]

The fact that a bishop's wife will boldly do what no RS President's husband would dare, shows that, contra Katherine, one of the biggest problems with LDS culture is that it is far too matriarchal.

That was brave

[Silver Dragonfly]

I honestly think it would be best for you to try to handle one issue at a time. One of the anti-Mormons' favourite tactics is to try to overwhelm you with the sheer volume of material. It's the old adage that, if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it just might stick. Particularly if you can throw it faster than anyone can hose it off.

I'm sorry, isn't mms a faithful Mormon? He seemed to indicate that in his post. Is he trying to throw mud at me? Sometimes I can't tell the critics from the questioners....

That said, if you'd like to see a good summary of the Book of Abraham issues, have a look here.

Thank you very much for the link, Pahoran. I think I'll save that topic for after General Conference and the talk with Bishop.

What I would suggest is that you tell the Bishop you are investigating these questions, and that you are trying to find the material from faithful sources. Mention that you are getting a bit of "noise" from the naysayers, but that you are trying to cut through that stuff. This will pre-empt any tattling.

BTW, regarding something you wrote earlier: the bishop's wife has no business asking you what you are seeing him for. If women need assistance from the bishop, they don't need his wife's approval. If they need it from other sisters, that's why we have Relief Society Presidents called and set apart for that purpose. I sustain them wholeheartedly (being married to one, I'd better.) The fact that a bishop's wife will boldly do what no RS President's husband would dare, shows that, contra Katherine, one of the biggest problems with LDS culture is that it is far too matriarchal.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah, we all know (the other sisters in the ward, that is) that she doesn't have the right to intrude or intercept the Bishop's job of handling the questions. She happens to BE the Relief Society President BTW, (small rural ward). The running story is that she just can't handle the thought of the women being secluded in there with her husband, when they should be seeking out HER counsel first, (because they are women). He's pretty good looking, with a cleft in his chin, and some of the younger girls in the ward have little crushes on him, but that is not the case with me. She just sees it as an attempt to bypass her and go to the Bishop, when she thinks she is in the chain of authority or something. I don't think it's like this everywhere, though. I'm not too sure what you mean by 'far too matriarchal' and I won't venture a guess because I can't read your mind. If you feel like elaborating on that, it's up to you. Where I come from, in my ward, the men pretty much run it all with the exception of the Bishop's wife who controls the RS almost singlehandedly. Lots of women are bothered by it, so I think its just a personality thing, not an attempt to separate women from the men.

Thank you for your continued interest in my posts Pahoran. I think I'll take a couple days off and come back after Conference. Maybe I'll feel a little more enlightened by then.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm sorry, isn't mms a faithful Mormon? He seemed to indicate that in his post. Is he trying to throw mud at me? Sometimes I can't tell the critics from the questioners....

Some here might be members on the actual records of the chruch, however there spirit is far from the LDS view. I will leave it up to you to decide who is who. It really gets quite easy once you know how to identify them.

[Lee]

Hmmm, Thats too bad then. have you not read many of the threads that cover this exact topic. Why are there 6 versions. Why do you think. Does it mean that it is false? THat is quite a hasty conclusion to come to, you have been a member for 40 years and this little nugget sways your whole testimony. WOW. So there are 4 diffrent gospels in the Bible all tell a diffrent version than the other, so by your logic the Bible clearly is false??

You knew this was comming. What are you saying here? Are you claiming the Chuch is false becuase JS is a false prophet. IF so makeing totally lame oneliners does nothing.

Yes I knew this was coming.

Joseph Smith is a true prophet so the LDS church is true. I learned this a long time ago. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith has helped me when faced with anti Mormon writings, words out of context, half truthes. and just out and out lies.

What makes a difference when someone has a personal testimony of God and Christ, Joseph Smith, The LDS Church, The Book of Mormon, the Living Prophet?

Lame oneliners??? Probably the best I'll be able to do. Not as wordy as the rest of you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes I knew this was coming.

Joseph Smith is a true prophet so the LDS church is true. I learned this a long time ago. Having a testimony of Joseph Smith has helped me when faced with anti Mormon writings, words out of context, half truthes. and just out and out lies.

What makes a difference when someone has a personal testimony of God and Christ, Joseph Smith, The LDS Church, The Book of Mormon, the Living Prophet?

Lame oneliners??? Probably the best I'll be able to do. Not as wordy as the rest of you.

It is possible I jumped the gun here. I apologize. Believe me Im not much of a person of much speaking. Perhaps I have learned more how to do this on these message boards. Some times its is hard to tell what some one is writing when they write just one line. Well stick around we can help each other then

[ProvoGirl]

Hmmm, Thats too bad then. have you not read many of the threads that cover this exact topic. Why are there 6 versions. Why do you think. Does it mean that it is false? THat is quite a hasty conclusion to come to, you have been a member for 40 years and this little nugget sways your whole testimony. WOW. So there are 4 diffrent gospels in the Bible all tell a diffrent version than the other, so by your logic the Bible clearly is false??

No. 'This' little nugget isn't what swayed my testimony. It was one of many things after several years of study. I didn't take it lightly, at all. It wasn't on a whim. There were many prayers said and tears shed.

Oh...and yes. There are some things I believe that are in the Bible that are clearly false. Joseph Smith must have thought that too, or he wouldn't have started a revised version.

[Lee]

It is possible I jumped the gun here. I apologize. Believe me Im not much of a person of much speaking. Perhaps I have learned more how to do this on these message boards. Some times its is hard to tell what some one is writing when they write just one line. Well stick around we can help each other then

I'm not upset at all I had it coming, no need for an apology, but thanks just the same. I'm not going away, way to interesting here for me to take off now!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Understanding the nature of revelation is fundamental when discussing the first vision. Have you read the Backman stuff on it? Or Rough Stone Rolling?

[wenglund]

Of course its relevant to "salvation."

Salvation, as defined by the LDS church, requires that the investigator accept that JS is a true prophet.

Full disclosure of "troublesome history" is "relevant" when the information at issue is of the kind and nature that would lead some investigators (or members with "weak testimonies") to reject JS's divinity, thereby reject the LDS concept of salvation.

I understand that is how you and others may view it, and I can respect that. If you believe that your salvation (and the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling) hinges upon certain "troublesome" aspects of Church history, then that is your right, and it would make sense that you would act accordingly on that belief.

Can you accept and respect that others, such as myself and perhaps the leaders and most of the members, may see it differently--where the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling, but more particularly the way of salvation, is not dependant upon knowing "troublesome History" or even much of the "non-troublesome history"? And, wouldn't it make sense that we act accordingly on our belief, and not be expected to act in accordance to how you and others may view things (any more than we should expect you and others to act according to how we view things)?

As to the motives, I don't agree with you. If you go to the LDS website, and look at the pictures of JS translating the golden plates. While you and i can only speculate on motives, but it strikes me that those in charge of the website must have taken into account the potential "adverse reactions" to a picture of JS looking into his hat, when they opted to include an inaccurate and misleading picture of JS in a scholarly fashion, pondering over the plates.

As might be expected, the way you view the BoM translation paintings is quite different from how I view them, or how perhaps the artist and the Church intended them to be viewed. You seem to be scrutinizing them for exacting historical accuracy (which, again is your right), and I am looking to descern the important elements of the message the artist may intend to be convey.

From what I have learned, an artist's intent is not always to paint something in exacting and accurate detail, but often s/he may wish to highlight certain things (often at the expense of exactitude) and/or convey a specific message. For example, I am fond of graphics of the City of Seattle, and often find that the artist has compressed and distorted the landscape in order to include all the key elements of the city and give the city a certain feel. I have no problem with that since I understand the artists intent isn't exact replication.

Similarly (at least in principle), the paintings of the BoM translation may have been intended to capture key elements of the translation (Joseph, Oliver, and the golden plates), and convey the simple message of the BoM being translated, and not precise replication of HOW the translation may have taken place.

In fact, the one painting of the BoM translation I found on the Church web site, the most glaring inaccuracy was not the absence of Joseph's head in the hat (there is some question whether that translation method was used at all times throughout the translation process, or likely used just early on in the translation processes with transcribers other than Oliver), but rather the plates resting on the translation/transcription table in full view of Oliver Cowdery. Some may find this troubling and perhaps ascribe underhanded motives to the Church for using the picture, but to me, I think I understand the authors intent. He or she wasn't trying to describe HOW exactly the translation/transcription took place, but to simply say that it did take place, and to depict the key elements that were involved (Joseph, Oliver, and the golden plates).

Also, I don't see the artists omitting Joseph's head in the hat so as to avoid an aversive reaction, but rather to avoid confusion. With a painting of a head buiried in a hat, it would be difficult for an observer to tell from the picture whose head is buried in the hat and what the purson is doing. Whereas, the way the artists have depicted translation, it is far more evident.

But, that may just be how I see it, and as such I don't figure those paintings to be evidence of the motive you suggest even were I to think LDS paintings as indicitive of LDS motives (which I don't). I can respect, though, that others may see it differently. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-