White-washed History And Full Disclosure?

[why me]

Is polygamy a "wart" in the Church's history?

For Mr. Lamborn it certainly was. And that is my point. For many exers or postmoers the bringing up of 'the church is hiding its history' can imply that the church has warts that they are covering up. Personally, I like the polygamy aspect of lds history. I find it very colorful and unique.

I, for one, don't think so. I'm not at all embarassed by it.

HiJolly

But some of our exer or posmo brothers and sisters can give a when they 'discover' polygamy. And then act the victim.

[selek]

I pulled this from the other thread for ease

Maybe you missed some of my other posts.

It's possible- I jump around a lot.

First I think it should be taken care of in the home.

As someone who loves history (both secular and Church), I can agree. I don't know how realistic it is in this day and age, but I can agree its a worthwhile ideal to strive for.

second, I think any Doctrinal issues or past Church practices that can deepen our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be contained and discussed within Church manuals and settings.

Again, I can agree here. The danger that I see is that we can get so caught up in context that we literally lose the forest for the trees. There is only a limited amount of time each Sunday to cover these things- and so we must consider the need to skip the chocolate cookie and go straight for the creamy filling.

It is my opinion that Polygamy, Joseph Smith vision(s), translation processes, Church leaders opinions vs. Revelation etc. can prove vital to a deepening understanding of God's dealings with his children.

I agree- but the question is whether this is a matter for personal study, or whether it can justify detracting from the basic lesson being taught. Church time, being so constrained, must necessarily be tailored to the broadest possible audience. To put it in a musical context, Church time must be devoted to conveying the melody itself. We can go back and wax rapturous about the beautiful base notes on our own time.

Other issues may only provide an historical context with no real bearing on enriching our current understanding of the Church and the Gospel, these issues can be left aside for those with an interest.

Here we agree completely- the question then becomes one of honest disagreement about what context has real bearing. What is dark chocolate cookie for you might be bland cream filling for someone else (or vice versa ).

However, I would hope the church would not discourage honest historical scholarship. Which I feel some GA's attempted with Juanita Brooks and Leonard Arrington.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I agree that suppression of honest scholarship is to be discouraged, but I think we may not see eye-to-eye on what constitutes "honest scholarship" versus "agenda-driven editorializing".

Wow! Reasonable discourse and common ground. This begs the question, "Are you wrong or am I?"

[BishopRic]

For Mr. Lamborn it certainly was. And that is my point. For many exers or postmoers the bringing up of 'the church is hiding its history' can imply that the church has warts that they are covering up. Personally, I like the polygamy aspect of lds history. I find it very colorful and unique.

But some of our exer or posmo brothers and sisters can give a when they 'discover' polygamy. And then act the victim.

Btw, I think most of us don't feel "victimized," just mislead. We take responsibility for believing what we did. And we take responsibility to take the action to move on if we choose.

[selek]

When I'm Prophet I'll look you up. Until then, I just teach what's in the manual.

I dunno- by the time you're prophet, you may have to look up. I'll likely be dead.

Then again, by the time I'm prophet, the whole exercise will have collapsed in on itself and all those who can be redeemed will have been.

I figure I'm in line to be prophet somewhere between Ozzy Osbourne and Kurt Cobain.

[why me]

Btw, I think most of us don't feel "victimized," just mislead. We take responsibility for believing what we did. And we take responsibility to take the action to move on if we choose.

Of course to feel misled is to bring one's own baggage into the playing field. I have to admit that the lds church can do a better job in informing people about polygamy and other tricky items if only because many our being lead away. However, like a said, the lds church is the only church being accused of hiding its history and yet, I have not found many protestants or catholics who can give a heartrendering account of their church history. Maybe a scattering here or there but....they keep it very simple if they do know something.

[wenglund]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, Wade, but I wanted to address this post. I hope you have not already covered my observation further down the thread.

The way you have laid it out makes the church into a business, not an owner of divine truth. It is marketing a product, it has a mission statement. Nothing in this process would provide any insight as to whether or not this particular business has ties to a spiritual, higher being.

I intentionally put the economic or business terms in quotes in hopes of preventing these misperception. Clearly, at least in your case, it didn't suffice.

For what it is worth, I don't view the Church as a business--though I think that economic principles (such as the belief that the driving force behind most decisions made by humans is to maximize one's happiness) may apply throughout all walks of life, including religion. I certainly believe the Church has ties to God and spiritual things. However, I am not sure that divine truths can be "owned" or "copyrighted", though I believe the Church does "possess" them.

So from the point of view that the church is a business, your outline is rational.

What is unreasonable about it is that everything is designed to prop up the product without addressing the quality of the product. This marketing scheme knows about some harmful chemicals used in the marking of the product, but no one would buy the product if this was disclosed. That would not fit into the mission statement, would it? So it stays hidden so as not to impede agenda of the mission statement.

Yet for someone who has taken the time to analyze and research the product, they think it is flawed. They think it is not what the church claims it is. They think it might even be harmful if used properly. They find out that the inventor of the product is not qualified to make said product.

There have been all sorts of products peddled through a business. A discerning and careful buyer of any product, particularly ones that carry claims of eternal implication, will take the time to make sure the product is worth it before purchasing.

Let me see if I can restate your points syllogistically, and in a way that more directly relates to topic of this thread (i.e what portions of its history should the Church teach in its lessons?)

a) If a "product or service" contains some harmful things, or if the "product or services" are the result of flawwed research and analysis, or if the "product or service" are provided by unqualified people, then the "business" offering that "product or services" has a moral obligation to disclose these things either to potential or existing "customers".

b) Some critics believe that the Church contains some harmul history, is flawwed in its research and analysis, and is provided by unqualified people.

c) Therefore, in the minds of some critics, the Church has a moral obligation to disclose these things in their lessons.

Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?

If so, then while I may see it differently, I believe your argument makes sense from your point of view.

However, can you think of a rational way in which apologists may see it differently? (Hint: it is unlikely that they would think the "product or service", itself, is harmful, flawwed, or provided by unqualified people.)

Where I do think there may be some agreement is in thinking that the "customer" bears at least some responsibility in making a wise "purchase" or in the manner or extent to which they use of the "product or services".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

Do not link to anti-Mormon sites.

[selek]

If this is true, and I simply copied from the site, at one time, it was deemed quite important in the grand scheme of things. It seems it would be important to at least bring it up sometime in the course of talking Mormon history.

In other words, to prove Mormon teachings untrue, you simply copy uncritically from an anti-Mormon site and expect us to bow and scrape before your genius.

This truly is moral courage- instead of telling your own lies, you quote others to do it for you. Instead of cherry-picking quotes yourself, you simply cut-and-paste the works of others without any regard to context or reliability.

[why me]

From http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_legacy.htm

If this is true, and I simply copied from the site, at one time, it was deemed quite important in the grand scheme of things. It seems it would be important to at least bring it up sometime in the course of talking Mormon history.

I would agree with you. I see no harm in it. However, I do think that if one needs to cover all the details of doctrine during the last 150 years, the class may take a lifetime. Plus, good teachers will need to be trained. We need to remember that the average lds is just a working Joe or jane, married with kids who teaches lessons on the side. Certainly not a professional. Also, in other churches, to be an ordained minister takes years of college and learning doctrine in seminary.

Do you see my point?

[BishopRic]

I would agree with you. I see no harm in it. However, I do think that if one needs to cover all the details of doctrine during the last 150 years, the class may take a lifetime. Plus, good teachers will need to be trained. We need to remember that the average lds is just a working Joe or jane, married with kids who teaches lessons on the side. Certainly not a professional. Also, in other churches, to be an ordained minister takes years of college and learning doctrine in seminary.

Do you see my point?

Yes I do, and it is a good one.

Plural marriage (and it's only one of many issues to be disclosed, IMO) is, I think I've read somewhere (please, no CFR!), the most challenging issue held by non-Mormons when asked what they know about Mormonism. So it seems that a church that has as one of its missions to "spread the gospel," and last I heard there was still a degree of conforming to "every member a missionary," that it would educate the members about the issue -- if for no other reason, consistency in the message it projects. So if it isn't going to be taught in precious lesson time...perhaps a good book with the official teachings about it might be prudent.

[Lamanite]

It's possible- I jump around a lot.

As someone who loves history (both secular and Church), I can agree. I don't know how realistic it is in this day and age, but I can agree its a worthwhile ideal to strive for.

Again, I can agree here. The danger that I see is that we can get so caught up in context that we literally lose the forest for the trees. There is only a limited amount of time each Sunday to cover these things- and so we must consider the need to skip the chocolate cookie and go straight for the creamy filling.

I agree- but the question is whether this is a matter for personal study, or whether it can justify detracting from the basic lesson being taught. Church time, being so constrained, must necessarily be tailored to the broadest possible audience. To put it in a musical context, Church time must be devoted to conveying the melody itself. We can go back and wax rapturous about the beautiful base notes on our own time.

Here we agree completely- the question then becomes one of honest disagreement about what context has real bearing. What is dark chocolate cookie for you might be bland cream filling for someone else (or vice versa ).

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I agree that suppression of honest scholarship is to be discouraged, but I think we may not see eye-to-eye on what constitutes "honest scholarship" versus "agenda-driven editorializing".

Wow! Reasonable discourse and common ground. This begs the question, "Are you wrong or am I?"

Somedays when I think something is sooooo important, the next day it reveals itself as a mere fleeting factoid that is quickly forgotten.

I hesitate to put this out here but I will do so and hope it "will not be trampled under" the feet of men/women.

Last week I met with one of the Twelve. It was a social visit, his daughter is a friend of my Mom's. Anyway, during our conversation I asked him if we should expect any suprises during GC. (This was after I asked if he needed any help with his talk. He thought that was funny). He said "when people ask me who the next apostle is going to be I tell them to ask President Hinckley". At that time I received a strong spiritual witness that this Church is led by a Prophet who is led by God the Almighty. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic, it was just a very powerful experience. Anyway, if you asked me at that moment how much I cared about Polyandry I don't know that I would even know what you're talking about.

Anyway thanks for being nice today. I'm really trying to temper all my passions with understanding. Plus it doesn't help that I'm a loud mouth intstigator who shoots off at the proverbial mouth waaaay toooooo muuuuuch!

[Hammer]

Somedays when I think something is sooooo important, the next day it reveals itself as a mere fleeting factoid that is quickly forgotten.

I hesitate to put this out here but I will do so and hope it "will not be trampled under" the feet of men/women.

Last week I met with one of the Twelve. It was a social visit, his daughter is a friend of my Mom's. Anyway, during our conversation I asked him if we should expect any suprises during GC. (This was after I asked if he needed any help with his talk. He thought that was funny). He said "when people ask me who the next apostle is going to be I tell them to ask President Hinckley". At that time I received a strong spiritual witness that this Church is led by a Prophet who is led by God the Almighty. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic, it was just a very powerful experience. Anyway, if you asked me at that moment how much I cared about Polyandry I don't know that I would even know what you're talking about.

Anyway thanks for being nice today. I'm really trying to temper all my passions with understanding. Plus it doesn't help that I'm a loud mouth intstigator who shoots off at the proverbial mouth waaaay toooooo muuuuuch!

Awesome. I have felt the same way.

[selek]

So if it isn't going to be taught in precious lesson time...perhaps a good book with the official teachings about it might be prudent.

So which of the Danites will be assigned to hold the membership at gunpoint to ensure that they read this excellent new book?

As has been stated time and time again, the information is out there, and has been from the beginning.

And yet we see again and again the clarion call of doubt and denial espoused by those "surprised" by things that have been common knowledge in the Church since its founding.

At what point, LittleRicky, is it the member's responsibility instead of the Church's?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes I do, and it is a good one.

Plural marriage (and it's only one of many issues to be disclosed, IMO) is, I think I've read somewhere (please, no CFR!), the most challenging issue held by non-Mormons when asked what they know about Mormonism. So it seems that a church that has as one of its missions to "spread the gospel," and last I heard there was still a degree of conforming to "every member a missionary," that it would educate the members about the issue -- if for no other reason, consistency in the message it projects. So if it isn't going to be taught in precious lesson time...perhaps a good book with the official teachings about it might be prudent.

Church History in the Fulness of Times, a CES text, discusses plural marriage. So does A Comprehensive History of the Church.

Both are published by the Church.

Edited to add: Both of these works have been around for many years. Yet we still have people saying "The Church ought to publish its official teachings on the subject."

[selek]

Somedays when I think something is sooooo important, the next day it reveals itself as a mere fleeting factoid that is quickly forgotten.

Ah yes, the fish-eye view of the world! I know it well!

I hesitate to put this out here but I will do so and hope it "will not be trampled under" the feet of men/women.

Last week I met with one of the Twelve. It was a social visit, his daughter is a friend of my Mom's. Anyway, during our conversation I asked him if we should expect any suprises during GC. (This was after I asked if he needed any help with his talk. He thought that was funny). He said "when people ask me who the next apostle is going to be I tell them to ask President Hinckley". At that time I received a strong spiritual witness that this Church is led by a Prophet who is led by God the Almighty. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic, it was just a very powerful experience. Anyway, if you asked me at that moment how much I cared about Polyandry I don't know that I would even know what you're talking about.

Thank you for sharing this with us. Hopefully, it will be taken in the spirit in which it was offered.

Anyway thanks for being nice today. I'm really trying to temper all my passions with understanding. Plus it doesn't help that I'm a loud mouth intstigator who shoots off at the proverbial mouth waaaay toooooo muuuuuch!

NO Fair! Paradigm piracy is one thing, but you can't steal my self-image !

[Lamanite]

Very few things have caused me to ponder and reflect as much as this topic has. Part of me says Preach only Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On the other end of the continuum is something akin to a bazooka blast of everything to everyone. I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in charge. Which means I would make no changes and do nothing drastic. And maybe one day I can reply to the messengers question, I'm just waiting and praying for further light and knowledge.

[wenglund]

Plural marriage (and it's only one of many issues to be disclosed, IMO) is, I think I've read somewhere (please, no CFR!), the most challenging issue held by non-Mormons when asked what they know about Mormonism. So it seems that a church that has as one of its missions to "spread the gospel," and last I heard there was still a degree of conforming to "every member a missionary," that it would educate the members about the issue -- if for no other reason, consistency in the message it projects. So if it isn't going to be taught in precious lesson time...perhaps a good book with the official teachings about it might be prudent.

While growing up for a time in the "mission field", and while on my mission, I encountered this "challenge" on not a few occasions. My response was simply, "yes...for a time polygamy was a common practice in my Church, but for many decades now it has been forbidden." From what I could tell, that seemed to suffice. So, at least in terms of the situation you described, I don't personally see the need for any formal education, let alone a book on the subject. But, I can respect that others might see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

While growing up for a time in the "mission field", and while on my mission, I encountered this "challenge" on not a few occasions. My response was simply, "yes...for a time polygamy was a common practice in my Church, but for many decades now it has been forbidden." From what I could tell, that seemed to suffice. So, at least in terms of the situation you described, I don't personally see the need for any formal education, let alone a book on the subject. But, I can respect that others might see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My mission was the same...and it sufficed for me too. But today in the internet age, there is much at the touch of "google search" that talks more about Joseph's polyandry and other events that might be deemed offensive to investigators. My only point is that the "inoculation" idea might be more prudent today for the church.

[gmormon]

Somedays when I think something is sooooo important, the next day it reveals itself as a mere fleeting factoid that is quickly forgotten.

I hesitate to put this out here but I will do so and hope it "will not be trampled under" the feet of men/women.

Last week I met with one of the Twelve. It was a social visit, his daughter is a friend of my Mom's. Anyway, during our conversation I asked him if we should expect any suprises during GC. (This was after I asked if he needed any help with his talk. He thought that was funny). He said "when people ask me who the next apostle is going to be I tell them to ask President Hinckley". At that time I received a strong spiritual witness that this Church is led by a Prophet who is led by God the Almighty. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic, it was just a very powerful experience. Anyway, if you asked me at that moment how much I cared about Polyandry I don't know that I would even know what you're talking about.

Anyway thanks for being nice today. I'm really trying to temper all my passions with understanding. Plus it doesn't help that I'm a loud mouth intstigator who shoots off at the proverbial mouth waaaay toooooo muuuuuch!

I appreciate your passion and your spirit for they bring knowledge and comfort with them. I've stated this in another post but it applies with what you have said here, my testimony is not biult upon the history of the church, but is biult upon my knowledge of the gospel. I like studying history and digging for information, but when it comes to my spiritual well being I turn to prayer and the scriptures. Thanks for sharing!!!

[ruski_canuk]

Wade,

For sake of argument, lets assume that we have 100 converts of Religion X who converted without any knowledge of a troublesome Fact A regarding the Religion X's foundational history.

Lets say that if, during their investigation 30 of these prospective converts, upon learning of Fact A would not have converted to Religion X.

Some would say that FACT A was both relevant and material to the conversion decision, and that all prospective converts should be told of relevant material facts, afterall the decision to change faith is a significant decision that significantly impacts one life far more so than lets say choosing a car buying a fridge.

Do you agree with that sentiment?

I'm libertarian. I'd argue that the church is wholly justified in trying to emphasize the positive aspects and spinning it as nicely as possible. However, any deception I would not accept as ethical such as the 'lying for the lord' in the early church.

I think this reasoning holds well for adults, but, like any libertarian argument, things get difficult for children. For those born and raised in the church whose lives and relationships are Mormonism-formed whilst the church withholds a slightly more objective account of information relevant in assessing its truthfulness, the situation is more sticky. I would argue, however, that given the CLAIMS of the church (one true church, etc) that it would be consistent and proper for it to attempt an as objective history possible. It depends if you prefer Aristotle or Plato, I suppose [give me Aristotle].

[Tampinha]

Church History in the Fulness of Times, a CES text, discusses plural marriage. So does A Comprehensive History of the Church.

Both are published by the Church.

Edited to add: Both of these works have been around for many years. Yet we still have people saying "The Church ought to publish its official teachings on the subject."

Lloyd, I am interested what you think the percentage of members of the church have a set of the Comprehensive History of the Church, and how many have read it? It is a monster. Plus, it is not easy reading. I have read the first volume and been in and out of some of the others, but I would put the percentage at very, very low.

[Alf O'Mega]

As someone who was actually paying attention, I can attest to the fact that it was taught that it was at the time "the thing to do" to be sealed to the prophet, and as such, a whole lot more women were sealed to Joseph than were actually married to him.

I'd be interested to see a reference to this from a lesson manual. I (as someone who was also paying attention) heard the same thing, but I'm not at all sure it was in any of the official teaching materials.

When you get a minute, Pahoran, I'm still interested in your reference.

Another day, another C for R.

[Tampinha]

Yes I do, and it is a good one.

Plural marriage (and it's only one of many issues to be disclosed, IMO) is, I think I've read somewhere (please, no CFR!), the most challenging issue held by non-Mormons when asked what they know about Mormonism. So it seems that a church that has as one of its missions to "spread the gospel," and last I heard there was still a degree of conforming to "every member a missionary," that it would educate the members about the issue -- if for no other reason, consistency in the message it projects. So if it isn't going to be taught in precious lesson time...perhaps a good book with the official teachings about it might be prudent.

This is why I think we should better educate the general membership of the church on the controversial issues that countermo's attack us on. I think the active general membership should have a basic understanding of the

arguments so that they can at least give out better information.

When I was in high school, I dated a non-member girl for a couple of years. She was a great girl. During the course of us dating, she started searching for a Christian Religion to join. I gave her a book of mormon and bore my testimony of the church, etc. In her inner circle of close friends, there were a couple of very active EVs. As soon as she had started dating me, they started giving her information regarding Mormonism that they'd been taught in their churches. When she came to me with some of the issues she had heard about, all I could do was respond by saying that everything she heard was anti-mormon garbage, and none of it was true. Then I would do what I had been taught to do my whole life, just bear testimony. Well, that wasn't good enough. She ended up joining a non-denominational church. Looking back, as a seventeen year old, I feel like I should have had some answers for her. I think it would be a great thing if our youth were equipped with as much information as the EV teenagers are. Am I wrong?

[BishopRic]

This is why I think we should better educate the general membership of the church on the controversial issues that countermo's attack us on. I think the active general membership should have a basic understanding of the

arguments so that they can at least give out better information.

When I was in high school, I dated a non-member girl for a couple of years. She was a great girl. During the course of us dating, she started searching for a Christian Religion to join. I gave her a book of mormon and bore my testimony of the church, etc. In her inner circle of close friends, there were a couple of very active EVs. As soon as she had started dating me, they started giving her information regarding Mormonism that they'd been taught in their churches. When she came to me with some of the issues she had heard about, all I could do was respond by saying that everything she heard was anti-mormon garbage, and none of it was true. Then I would do what I had been taught to do my whole life, just bear testimony. Well, that wasn't good enough. She ended up joining a non-denominational church. Looking back, as a seventeen year old, I feel like I should have had some answers for her. I think it would be a great thing if our youth were equipped with as much information as the EV teenagers are. Am I wrong?

Excellent illustration of what black and white thinking can do! Although I don't think the deep details of the "anti" material apologist explanations are necessary for a teenager to know, an approach of "well, some of it might be accurate, but should be understood in the full context..." Perhaps that might ward off the embarassment you talk of.

[Tampinha]

Excellent illustration of what black and white thinking can do! Although I don't think the deep details of the "anti" material apologist explanations are necessary for a teenager to know, an approach of "well, some of it might be accurate, but should be understood in the full context..." Perhaps that might ward off the embarassment you talk of.

I agree. I don't think that I needed to know deep details to respond in a better way than I did. Looking back, bearing testimony just wasn't sufficient. My Bishop recently pulled me in to talk to me about how thing were going with me and my family and to see how my wife was (I mentioned earlier that she left the church a couple of years ago because of polygamy). During our conversation, he told me that the Stake President had said that

when people present anti-mormon arguments to us, we just need to respond by bearing testimony. I held my tongue, because I don't have a need to stir trouble up with my bishop, but if I could go back, I think I would tell him that I don't think that bearing testimony is good enough, at least in most cases. We can do better than that, can't we? I think its to our best interest to do better than that.