Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[sunstoned]

If you like one-sidedly hostile propaganda, the critics are great.

On the other hand, if you really want to know history, balanced, serious, professional scholarship is the way to go. And, fortunately, Mormonism has produced such historical scholarship in considerable abundance (e.g. Alexander, Hedges, Anderson, Backman, Underwood, Bennett, Allen, Arrington, May, Peterson, Madsen, Jessee, Derr, Morris, Harper, Ashurst-McGee, Bushman, Bitton, Walker, Turley, Leonard, etc., etc.).

It isn't the job of the Church to teach graduate seminars in Mormon history, and the priesthood/Relief Society manuals are not historical textbooks. But there are great resources, readily available.

Don’t forget Quinn, Palmer, Compton and Simon Southerton. Oh, I sure you had your reasons for leaving these authors off your list, but this just drives home the point that there is a lot of information out there. Some of it is good, and some of it is not as good. None of it is published by the church. Joseph Smith is the core character of the restoration. One would think that a principle that was taught and practiced by him for 15 years would be important enough that it could be taught and discussed in detail in a official way.

[William Schryver]

I am not sure that anyone is asking for graduate courses in mormon history. But in my opinion it is the job of the Church to present a more balanced history then it does in its seminary, institute, SS and priesthood manuals. It also ought to disclose a more balanced history to investigators before they make a major commitment that requires huge sacrifices and major cultural changes. That really does not seem to much to ask or expect for an Church that will ask for the consecration of everything from a member.

I find it fascinating, and continually so, that the only people clamoring for the church to take on the task of "disclosing a more balanced history" to its investigators and members are those who have long since made the transition from believing member to alienated or ex-member. In many cases, these same people make the claim that it was the discovery of "historical facts" that caused them to lose their faith. It has been my repeated observation that most of those who have been alienated from the church on account of the late discovery of previously unknown "historical facts" have often ceded their faith to a flawed interpretation or a conclusion based on only a partial grasp of the historical context of any given set of "facts." One can only conclude, when considering these observations, that the underlying motive of those who would encourage the teaching of LDS history in Sunday School is to undermine the faith of those who continue to remain faithful.

History is often, of course, a very complex subject. LDS history is often even more complex than its secular counterpart, for it necessarily entails the difficult-to-quantify component of divine intervention in the affairs of men. As a result, LDS history is not a subject that lends itself well to being taught in a Sunday School setting, at the hands of individuals for whom the discipline is too demanding for the time available for preparation and teaching. The same individual who may excel at conveying fundamental gospel truths and principles and bearing testimony of the same, may be entirely ill-equipped to address the issue of the handful of polyandrous relationships that bedevil the most assiduous historians of the Nauvoo period, or to cover the complex series of events that combined to bring about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

It is for these reasons that wise and faithful Latter-day Saints at every level recognize the wisdom in teaching basic doctrine in our standard curriculum, and leaving the in-depth study of history and theology to those inclined to such pursuits. There is, at present, no topic of church history that is not covered at length by faithful Latter-day Saints. No one is avoiding the controversial issues. They are simply pursued in their proper place -- as they ought to be.

Edit:

sunstone:

One would think that a principle that was taught and practiced by him for 15 years would be important enough that it could be taught and discussed in detail in a official way.

During the period in which plural marriage was authorized, it was "taught and discussed in detail in an official way." Once it was no longer authorized, it ceased to form part of the church's curriculum. Somehow this makes complete sense to me. Why it does not to others is something I fail to comprehend.

[Daniel Peterson]

Donâ??t forget Quinn, Palmer, Compton and Simon Southerton.

I didn't forget them.

Southerton isn't a historian. I was talking about historians.

Palmer isn't a good historian and he was never a professional historian. I was talking about good professional historians.

Quinn and Compton (a personal friend) are more complex cases. I find Quinn especially problematic.

None of it is published by the church.

The Church publishes very little, actually, and virtually no historical or other scholarship. That's not its task or mission.

Joseph Smith is the core character of the restoration. One would think that a principle that was taught and practiced by him for 15 years would be important enough that it could be taught and discussed in detail in a official way.

Perhaps. But you have to remember that plural marriage has been associated with very special problems. For example, the Church has worked hard (and perhaps overcompensated) in order to avoid a resurgence of fundamentalist polygamy. This makes the topic even more sensitive than it would otherwise be.

[Lucrecia24]

We go to Church to learn of Christ, His teachings and ministry. Joseph Smith's role in that part is essential, but what Joseph did outside it is not of our concern.

YES!!!!!! Dude (or dudette, no assumptions here...) That is so totally what I"ve been trying to say! Only you said it perfectly! Thank you, that is totally awesome!

[juliann]

Itâ??s not the simple Scott.

Brigham Young, John Taylor and others did practice polygamy. They did it openly, and outside of the one instance of BY and Zina Huntington Jacobs Young, they did not practice polyandry. Which means they did not take other menâ??s wives., at least men who were still alive, and active members of the church.

Oh, I see...it is ok as long as the men are doing it but not the women. This topic rarely comes up without a display of reeking sexism masquerading as righteous indignation. The double standard then proceeds to the demeanilng of the women as being brainless dupes...even though it is well documented that JS was told no with no consequences whatsoever.

Let the chauvinism proceed....

[juliann]

sunstone:

During the period in which plural marriage was authorized, it was "taught and discussed in detail in an official way." Once it was no longer authorized, it ceased to form part of the church's curriculum. Somehow this makes complete sense to me. Why it does not to others is something I fail to comprehend.

Has anyone considered that sexism is lurking very close to the surface? Maybe it isn't just the overwhelming desire to find something...anything...to gripe about.

[sunstoned]

As I have pointed out numerous times, I have not participated in Gospel Doctrine classes for many years, because I have been in Primary callings for a large portion of my time. The few glimpses I get are during VT times, which don't happen regularly where I live, and during the fourth year when the D&C is taught in the lesson manuals.

SD,

My 40 plus relationship with the church included graduating from Seminary, and graduating from BYU where I took all the required Church history courses. I also completed the course work and student teaching that was required to become a Seminary Teacher. Iâ??ve read the manuals that have been mentioned in this thread, and yes, there are references of Joseph Smith teaching and practicing polygamy. There are not very many references, and this topic is certainly not emphasized, but there are there. But, you will find no mention of polyandry, or the public and private lies and other actions that were used to cover it up.

I donâ??t know if this helps or not, but IMO there is far more information on this board about this topic than what you will find taught in any church course or discussed in any official publication. The arguments that are put forward on this board to justify what JS did and why he did it are by far the best and most detailed that you are going to find.

Like you, I came here two years ago looking for answers to questions that no one wanted to talk about. Well, itâ??s all talked about here, and Iâ??m glad there is a place where these things are discussed in a controlled manner that gives apologist the opportunity to put forward opinions without being shouted down by the numerous ex, post, anti, opposition. What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny. That knowledge has deeply changed the way I now perceive the world, but I am now a happier person.

[Daniel Peterson]

I donâ??t know if this helps or not, but IMO there is far more information on this board about this topic than what you will find taught in any church course or discussed in any official publication. The arguments that are put forward on this board to justify what JS did and why he did it are by far the best and most detailed that you are going to find.

They are not better than the things written on this topic by Richard Anderson and Scott Faulring, Richard Bushman, Dan Bachman, and others.

Like you, I came here two years ago looking for answers to questions that no one wanted to talk about. Well, itâ??s all talked about here, and Iâ??m glad there is a place where these things are discussed in a controlled manner that gives apologist the opportunity to put forward opinions without being shouted down by the numerous ex, post, anti, opposition. What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny. That knowledge has deeply changed the way I now perceive the world, but I am now a happier person.

I'm really sad that anybody would imagine that this message board offers the best discussions available of historical issues relating to Mormon truth claims. It doesn't even come close.

[juliann]

What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny. That knowledge has deeply changed the way I now perceive the world, but I am now a happier person.

This is my opnion only...the people who look at both sides and consistently choose the most negative of interpretations consistently support their opinion by demeaning the intelligence and "honesty" of everyone who comes to a different conclusion. If there is anything consistent on this board it is that one fact. The intolerance is a sad statement of what some describe as "open and honest".

[juliann]

They are not better than the things written on this topic by Richard Anderson and Scott Faulring, Richard Bushman, Dan Bachman, and others.

I'm really sad that anybody would imagine that this message board offers the best discussions available of historical issues relating to Mormon truth claims. It doesn't even come close.

I am afraid that for some it is as close as it will get.

[William Schryver]

sunstoned:

Like you, I came here two years ago looking for answers to questions that no one wanted to talk about. Well, itâ??s all talked about here, and Iâ??m glad there is a place where these things are discussed in a controlled manner that gives apologist the opportunity to put forward opinions without being shouted down by the numerous ex, post, anti, opposition. What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny.

I donâ??t agree with your conclusion at all. But, that could be because I have not depended on message boards and their denizens to provide me with a full and accurate picture of LDS history. Indeed, if you consider the discussions on internet message boards as â??open and honest scrutinyâ? of the foundational truth claims of the church, it is no surprise to me that your faith has eroded. I dare say I am at least as well aware as you of all of the controversies surrounding the foundational claims of the church, and I continue to believe (wholeheartedly I might add) that those claims are true. I suspect that my continued belief owes much to my reliance on the works of scholars who, with the lone exception of a certain professor of Islam at BYU, do not post on message boards.

That and the fact that my testimony is not contingent on the history of the church, but rather on its doctrines and the spiritual experiences that faithful adherence to them will bring.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sunstoned, do you really mean to suggest that the many believing scholars who have devoted years and years of their lives to the foundational narratives of Mormonism have not done so honestly?

Please be candid with us. Don't spare our feelings.

[sunstoned]

Sunstoned, do you really mean to suggest that the many believing scholars who have devoted years and years of their lives to the foundational narratives of Mormonism have not done so honestly?

Please be candid with us. Don't spare our feelings.

I do not mean to imply that at all. I called out in all of my posts that my conclusions were mine only, and that they are my opinions, and that I do not present them as facts. The fact that this board exists is testament that there are many differing opinions. There are many religious scholars who have devoted years and years of their lives to study and research, only a fraction of which are LDS. I would never think to question the honesty of their efforts.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay. Your statement that, in your opinion, the claims of Mormonism "cannot withstand honest scrutiny" made me wonder.

[juliann]

I would never think to question the honesty of their efforts.

Well, you did exactly that. You can't have it both ways, you can't say this "What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny" and then pretend that it is not a condemnation of those who do think the church withstands scrutiny.

[why me]

SD,

What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny. That knowledge has deeply changed the way I now perceive the world, but I am now a happier person.

I am not sure if this is correct. I believe that it can. There is no reason for it not to withstand open and honest scrutiny. What are the foundational claims of the lds church? The book of mormon, priesthood restoration, the witnesses, the first vision, the translation process etc. All can and would withstand an open and honest discussion.

Look at it this way. Oliver Cowdery never denied what he experienced even after he left the lds church. Likewise for the witnesses. Plus, the book of mormon has not been proven false and much that is now out there about it as always been out there right from the beginning of the lds church. The lds church has always had contention from non-believers and ex-members right from the beginning. And the early critics went on a search and destroy mission against the lds church. And it has survived.

Of course, I also know that one person's apple may be another person's orange when evidence is discussed. But the lds church would survive.

[sunstoned]

Well, you did exactly that. You can't have it both ways, you can't say this "What I found was that (and this is my opinion only) the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny" and then pretend that it is not a condemnation of those who do think the church withstands scrutiny.

Juliann, I think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Read my quote again. I said "in my opinion" the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand scrutiny. I stand by this belief, and I am not alone. I made no judgment on anyone who has come to a different conclusion than I have. I donâ??t believe much of the JW or the Catholic doctrine either, but I donâ??t think their Priests and Overseers are dishonest.

[why me]

I donâ??t believe much of the JW or the Catholic doctrine either, but I donâ??t think their Priests and Overseers are dishonest.

If they are human beings, they have the potential for dishonesty. Have you read JW history or catholic history? Were all their leaders honest? I don't think so. They also have a very human history, just like the lds.

Juliann, I think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Read my quote again. I said "in my opinion" the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand scrutiny. I stand by this belief, and I am not alone. I made no judgment on anyone who has come to a different conclusion than I have.

You will need to demonstrate your opinion. Why do you think the church could not withstand scrutiny? Making the statement is fine, but the reasons for your statement are lacking.

[Teancum]

No, I am not aware of an Institute manual, or B.H. Roberts Comprehensive History of the Church. I have been teaching in Primary pretty much since I got married, and I have had limited exposure to Relief Society lessons or Gospel Doctrine classes. I would have had to specifically asked for additional information and books to read if I wanted to know about Joseph's involvement in polygamy, and I was content with what I had been taught about Joseph Smith up until I came across the fairwiki article. That's what I take issue with. I have never been directed to any sources of additional reading material from within the Church. If I want to know about a certain topic, I would have had to have the desire to know more about it, and if I was content before, why would I ask? Now that I am aware of it, I am not content with the answers I am getting from my Bishop and I have come here to get answers. Some would tell me that it was a direct result of my laziness that I did not learn about polygamy in depth, and some others would argue that it is wrong to be discontented with the teachings given, that it means I am not humble enough to accept what I was taught, and that we should not give meat when milk will do. That's fine for newbies I guess, but I've been a member most of my life, and I want to know why I haven't been given anything but milk and a calling in Primary for the last 14 years.

My Bishop specifically asked me not to go about talking loudly on this subject to just anyone, he asked me to limit my inquiries to him or one of the counselors. I asked him if I could show the article to my mom, and he said he thought it would be best not to, and to let her come to him if it is troubling her.

I read the Documentive Church History, Roberts Comprehensive Church History and LDS institute manuals on Church history all before I was 25. I do not recall one of these mentioning Polyandry nor some of the other problems that relate to polygamy. Those I discovered from the critics and tried to defend it. It was when I read Mormon Enigma, Quinn, Van Wagner and Compton that I found out that some of this I felt was undefensible.

[Teancum]

Like encouraging them to read D&C 132? This is another of those twilight zone instances where that is used as proof of polygamy from one side of the countermo mouth while it is claimed that polygamy is being hidden from "run of the mill" members from the other side of the countermo mouth. There is certainly a gap between the specifics of JS's plural marriage and the knowledge he engaged in it but to continue to insist that "run of the mill" members are oblivious of D&C 132 is ridiculous. Anyone who is unaware of LDS scripture is not "run of the mill".

While I agree that D&C 132 indicates the origin of Plural marriage from Joseph Smith's revelations it is pretty scant on what really went on and how the doctrine and practice came to be. So I agree that no member really should have an excuse not to know about plural marriage in that it was practices and started with Joseph.

However, as you well know that is barely the tip of the iceberg.

[Teancum]

Institute courses are available to any adult member of the Church, and often, classes are scheduled expressly for non-college students.

Where I live Institute is expressly for college students and YSAs. Married adults are not invited at all. Maybe it is different elsewhere.

[Teancum]

I don't know that I differ much from your well-intended suggestions. However, I prefer that the non-salvific aspects of history (including the "troublesome" aspects) be addressed in official/unofficial Church history books similar to Bushmans, and perhaps in institute classes, and web sites such as FAIR and FARMS. That way, the objective of "innoculation" may be handled in a venue less focused on salvation, and which lend themselves better to some measure of apologetics. However, this will not eliminate certain members at some point learning things that may try their faith, and being suprised by the information, and perhaps then holding the Church responsible for not telling them sooner--though I am not sure this could be avoided any way it may be handled, unless avoiding faith-challenging "surprises" becomes the primary objective of the Church (which I don't think is practical or wise).

What do others think? Would you be satisfied if the Church published the "troublesome history" in the venues I suggested? If not, where would you advise it be addressed, and what is your reasoning for wanting it addressed there? And, what do you suppose will be accomplished in so doing?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A comment on non salvific issues. The Church hinges on the claims of Joseph Smith. Joseph's life and actions, at least in my opinion, are part of what we need to know in order to decide if we can trust his claims. Many things he did or did not do should be disclosed so one can make a reasonable and rational decision as to believe or not. Plural marriage in particular was tied to exaltation and position in the eternities. The temple endowment came about in close connection to the doctrines around it and the practice of it. Accordingly I think these issues have a lot to do with one's salvation.

[juliann]

Juliann, I think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Read my quote again. I said "in my opinion" the foundational claims of the church cannot withstand scrutiny. I stand by this belief, and I am not alone. I made no judgment on anyone who has come to a different conclusion than I have.

OK, you have completely avoided what you actually said so let's try it this way...

In my opinion, an evaluation of you cannot withstand the light of open and honest scrutiny. I am open and honest, thus I am able to see that you cannot withstand scrutiny. You therefore are not honest and open if you don't come to the same conclusion.

There is no other way to read what you said and I don't see why you are trying to pretend otherwise since that is obviously not an open or honest thing to do. But this is just my opinon, of course. An opnion that is the inevitable result of my open honesty that others are not capable of.

[Teancum]

He did tell me not to discuss this with anyone other than him or his counselors. He did ask me not to talk about this to other members in the ward, or bring it up to my mom. But he didn't say that I can't talk about it ever. He just wants some time to reflect upon it and talk with me again next Sunday about it. I agreed to keep it to myself for the time being. I 'get the feeling' that he doesn't want me to take it upon myself to reveal this, and he may assign a talk to one of his counselors or something so it can be brought up in Sacrament meeting or something. Or maybe he'll talk this over with the Stake President, or try to get the answers for me through some other way. I haven't given up on him at all, I was just a little disappointed that he didn't know much about it either and that he hadn't heard of FAIR. So, I will wait until next Sunday and we will talk about it again. He just doesn't want me to upset my mom since she is so convinced that this never happened. Maybe he will talk with her about it, I don't know.

I guess I did expect more from him, but why wouldn't I think he would have more knowledge than me? Why wouldn't I go to him with my questions? I've been taught that since I was 13 years old, and it seems reasonable to me that the Bishop would be able to quell my anxiety and help me move past my doubts. Isn't that what Bishops do? Everybody told me to go to the Bishop with my concerns, and now I'm being chastised for believing he could actually answer my questions. I'm not complaining about what I got, I'm expressing frustration at the slowness of the process and the availability of the information to run of the mill members. Sure it's out there, it's all around me. I should have just started floating all over the Internet with my questions instead of going through all the proper channels and trying to get answers from my Bishop, right? After all, he's just a man, not an encyclopedia. What good is he if you can't ask him questions and expect that he might be able to help you with them?

And, when I finally get the answers I need, why am I not able to share it with my mom or other members? Why would the Bishop be concerned about revealing these things unnecessarily? I'm just confused about that point because it seems flip-floppy. It's like saying, "We will teach you whatever you want to know, but you have to want to know it first. We won't teach you things you are not willing to ask about, and we won't trouble you with unwanted facts if you are content with your current knowledge."

I know the information is there, I just wouldn't have thought to ask if I hadn't come across it outside of the realm of the official manuals and Sunday routine. That's all I'm saying...

SD

I must be honest. You are in the wrong place here if you are expecting anyone to give you support in your questions. The environment here is hostile to any questioning member. I think you are seeing that tone here. I am not sure where to send you for answer to your honest questions and concerns. I do not think there is a great place. I like Mormon Stories and John Dehlin's approach. But be prepared to learn other things that have not been really taught to you anywhere else that may casue more questions. I also think Bushman's book is good. Have you read it? As for Polygamy, I think that a paper on the FAIR board written by a person who I think is a doctor an a convert as well goes through some of the sticky issues about plural marriage quite well. He especially does a good job with why Joseph covered in up at least in statements to the public and does an especially good job with what happened with the Manifesto and the post Manifesto issues.

Here however you well be sneered at, questioned for not doing leg work on your own, which is funny because that is what you are doing, told that it is never the Church's fault for not disclosing information about its own history. This I find odd to. It seems to me that an investor in an IRA is able to find out facts about what the investor invests in FROM THE COMPANY THEY INVEST IN. They do not need to go and find it all out on their own from other sources. Anyway, best wishes in your search.

[gmormon]

January 1995 Ensign, "I have a question" section, answered by Gilbert W. Scharffs, instructor and executive assistant, Salt Lake University Institute of Religion and publsihed by the Church.

You forgot to highlight a part of the quote. Here let me help you.

"When members canâ??t find answers on their own, they can turn to home and visiting teachers, quorum leaders, bishops, and stake presidents. If necessary, stake presidents can take questions to area presidencies or other authorities."

SD I been reading the replies back and forth, and feel that you are sincere in your questions. There are many who post here who know alot about church history, unfortunately I am not one of them, but they got to that point by studying and reading. They had questions just like you and probably have questions you haven't even thought of yet, however they are still looking for answers, just like you. The quote above given to you from MMS is a start not an answer In D&C 98:12 it says " For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith", this is slightly out of context but the concept is still true. Keep up your studies and work with your Bishop as it has been stated over and over he has resources to help him, but also you have resources. Prayer is a powerful tool use it often.