For those who felt deceived

[AmorLibertas]

Two pages, as I recall. Never taught as a lesson.

...

The failure to mention something that's almost universally known in a brief timeline to which most paid little attention is a pretty weak example of historical whitewashing.

So, what in your mind would be necessary to constitute historical whitewashing?

[Ray Agostini]

As I've said several times, Church history textbooks do, yes, discuss plural marriage.

Some secret.

Here's a hypothetical. Let's say a liberal-minded young missionary decides to tell his potential converts, "look, I'm not suppose to do this, but along with our formal discussions, I'd like you to read this book. It's called Mormon Enigma, and was written by two female Mormon historians. I don't want you to join the Church without knowing this, and then later regret it. If you can handle this, along with our discussions, I'll feel great about baptising you!"

Would you approve of this?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here's a hypothetical. Let's say a liberal-minded young missionary decides to tell his potential converts, "look, I'm not suppose to do this, but along with our formal discussions, I'd like you to read this book. It's called Mormon Enigma, and was written by two female Mormon historians. I don't want you to join the Church without knowing this, and then later regret it. If you can handle this, along with our discussions, I'll feel great about baptising you!"

Would you approve of this?

Yeah because the only way to get the "truth" is from people that are againt the church.

Since polygamy currently is not a requirement to enter into the CK I don't understand what the big deal is with regaurds to the truth claims of the church.

You might want to try a diffrent hypothetical.

[John Williams]

Yeah because the only way to get the "truth" is from people that are againt the church.

Since polygamy currently is not a requirement to enter into the CK I don't understand what the big deal is with regaurds to the truth claims of the church.

You might want to try a diffrent hypothetical.

The authors of Mormon Enigma are againt the church? Really?

[Ray Agostini]

Yeah because the only way to get the "truth" is from people that are againt the church.

Since polygamy currently is not a requirement to enter into the CK I don't understand what the big deal is with regaurds to the truth claims of the church.

You might want to try a diffrent hypothetical.

I think my hypothetical is fine. And the women who wrote Mormon Enigma were not "against the Church". As historians, they believed in publishing from primary source documents, all of which are listed in their footnotes.

And I take it that you, too, read this book?

[talisyn]

Here's a hypothetical. Let's say a liberal-minded young missionary decides to tell his potential converts, "look, I'm not suppose to do this, but along with our formal discussions, I'd like you to read this book. It's called Mormon Enigma, and was written by two female Mormon historians. I don't want you to join the Church without knowing this, and then later regret it. If you can handle this, along with our discussions, I'll feel great about baptising you!"

Would you approve of this?

I've been at turns fascinated and disgusted by this whole thread. Ray, you have summed up the entire reasoning of the former LDS crowd.

My question is this....What's so wrong with what the missionaries teach? God the Eternal Father and His only begotten son Jesus Christ are two distinct individuals! There are prophets of God in the world today! The power to move mountains and heal the sick and all sorts of other really cool stuff is back!

Considering these things, it seems to me that early LDS church history is the least controversial of the bunch. Seriously, if you as a convert can get over these biggies how is it that the matter of plural marriages et al are such huge stumbling blocks?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think my hypothetical is fine. And the women who wrote Mormon Enigma were not "against the Church". As historians, they believed in publishing from primary source documents, all of which are listed in their footnotes.

And I take it that you, too, read this book?

Forgive me. im thinking of a diffrent book. I retract my previous statment. I think I shall be done for the night. I am making way to many mistakes.

Or is this normal for me John? Serious.

[John Williams]

Forgive me. im thinking of a diffrent book. I retract my previous statment. I think I shall be done for the night. I am making way to many mistakes.

Or is this normal for me John? Serious.

Yeah, you do seem a little more muddled than usual (and that's saying something).

[Ray Agostini]

I've been at turns fascinated and disgusted by this whole thread. Ray, you have summed up the entire reasoning of the former LDS crowd.

My question is this....What's so wrong with what the missionaries teach? God the Eternal Father and His only begotten son Jesus Christ are two distinct individuals! There are prophets of God in the world today! The power to move mountains and heal the sick and all sorts of other really cool stuff is back!

Considering these things, it seems to me that early LDS church history is the least controversial of the bunch. Seriously, if you as a convert can get over these biggies how is it that the matter of plural marriages et al are such huge stumbling blocks?

I have never "gotten over" polygamy. I think my posts verify that. David Whitmer never "got over" polygamy. Nor did any of the witnesses. Would you like me to quote what an abomination it is, again? And why reasonable people who learn of it before joining, might think twice?

[talisyn]

I have never "gotten over" polygamy. I think my posts verify that. David Whitmer never "got over" polygamy. Nor did any of the witnesses. Would you like me to quote what an abomination it is, again? And why reasonable people who learn of it before joining, might think twice?

Polygamy is not an abomination.

[Ray Agostini]

Polygamy is not an abomination.

Jacob 2:

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, you do seem a little more muddled than usual (and that's saying something).

It might be becuase I have been working a lot of over time and my wife is ill. Oh and I normally dont stay up this late, but darn it I screwed up this thread for myself.I think I'll just sit this out a bit. THanks for the feed back.

Jacob 2:

Why is it an abomination.I must leave this alone. Im so tired.

[John Williams]

It might be becuase I have been working a lot of over time and my wife is ill. Oh and I normally dont stay up this late, but darn it I screwed up this thread for myself.I think I'll just sit this out a bit. THanks for the feed back.

I'm sorry to hear that your wife is ill. I hope she recovers quickly. And by all means, get some sleep! I'm headed to bed myself.

[Somebodyz]

Tarski, beastie et al.,

Do you think the world would be a better place today if Joseph Smith had never lived? In other words, suppose you suddenly achieved 100% success in your goal to open the eyes of Mormons by teaching them logic and reason. Suppose the First Presidency announced in General Conference that "Tarski and beastie are right" and they disbanded the church. Beyond a sense of vindication and gleeful satisfaction, would that bring you an inner peace and lasting happiness? Do you think that a world of reasoning skeptics is better than a world of deluded believers? If so, then how exactly would that lead to a higher functioning society?

Think this needs a thread of it's own. It could be quite interesting.

[Somebodyz]

I wouldn't necessarily say that the church hid anything from me, per se. I recognize that it's the church's prerogative to present its message, its history, its doctrine etc. as it sees fit. But I did feel like the Church treated me like a child who was incapable of digesting difficult information. So I was fed the one approved story of the first vision. I was taught church history that was long on testimony, persecution and inspirational stories but ultimately bore scant relation to reality (see, e.g., the movie Legacy or those fuzzy painting of Joseph and Emma sold at Deseret Books). I was taught milquetoast doctrine (repeated week after week with little variation).

And institutionally and culturally, I was discouraged from digging any deeper. For example, no class I was in ever discussed any facet of the first vision outside of the version currently contained in the PoGP. And there was a tacit understanding that things outside of the correlation committee-approved versions of things were not to be discussed. My MTC teacher, for instance, liked to relate a parable he called 'stay close to the trunk', calling the trunk the 'core' principles of the gospel, and the branches the more speculative areas. If you stay close to the trunk, you won't fall off (i.e., apostatize). Or if in a D&C course you mentioned peep stones, the topic was treated as a derailment at best and heresy at worst. So my teaching seemed nothing more than a few carefully selected bits of history or doctrine, filled out with a lot of inspirational stories and testimony-bearing.

If found this approach patronizing (treating us as if we weren't capable of handling these topics), and it made it seem as if the church was hiding something. I didn't particularly feel that I was ever exactly lied to but I did always feel like the church was embarrassed and frightened by its own history and doctrine, such that no material could be presented to us other than in the blandest, most sanitized and homogenized forms. I guess I never exactly felt deceived, but I did feel like I was never getting close to 100% of the story, which made it seem like damaging things were being withheld.

I don't understand people like yourself, who make such claims. I too didn't know much more than what I was taught in the Church, but not for a minute did it cross my mind it was the churches fault. It's churches job is to up lift, bring it's members closer to God, to seek that which is virtuous, lovely, good report, praiseworthy and wholesome.

Yet we are taught free agency, to gain knowledge, to seek understanding, we are made accountable for these things. We are taught to do our own personal scripture and gospel studies. Nothing is kept from us. We just have to get off our backsides and 'do it'. It seems to me, too many of those who leave, wanted to be spoon-fed.

[Deborah]

Why do LDS always blame the other person such as you did when you stated, "you probably heard more than you remember"? This happens over and over again, it must be some sort of unconscious defense mechanism.

Please explain how stating a psychological fact is "blaming" any one. No blame is involved. It's what happens. It happened to me.

When I joined the church I thought I had never heard about it before. However, it wasn't until after I joined that pieces of the puzzle began to fit together and I started remembering all the contacts and all the things I had heard before and even people I had met who were Mormon. In fact I met one girl I had been so impressed with a few years before because she was different. I had no idea at the time she was Mormon but I remembered all the stories they used to tell about her religion including the horns under the hats. I happened to meet this girl again after I joined the church and remembered her from that time she made such an impression on me.

I was cleaning out my closet after I was baptized and found some pictures of Joseph Smith praying in the grove and seeing the Father and Son. I had cut these from a magazine years before. I had no idea where they came from nor had I paid any attention to them at the time except I liked them. But now that I was a member of the church I recognized them immediately. It wasn't until years later I found out where they came from: my grandpa's house. His wife had a daughter-in-law who was a member of the church and left them with a bunch of Eras. Now if someone had asked me if I ever heard of the church before I would have said no. But I wouldn't be lying. As far as I remembered I hadn't. But as it turns out I had many contacts.

It's like a movie or tv star who you come to love in a certain role and think you've never seen before. But then you see an old movie or tv show and see that same actor in some smaller part, and realize wow that was so-and-so. Just watch an old Twilight Zone marathon and see all the famous people you didn't know at the time and thought you saw the first time they became famous.

The fact is it is impossible to be a member of this church for any length of time and not have heard or read some of the things people say they were never told about. But unless you are interested in those things at the time they don't stick. For example we've had all these discussions on the different versions of the First Vision. Now I've gotten church magazines since I've been a member of the church, but I honestly never remembered seeing the article on the various First Visions in the Ensign until someone brought it up here. Apparently it was something that never bothered me so it just didn't register at the time I saw it. We all have a tendency to remember only those things that we are really interested in at the time. The fact is many people in their early years just aren't interested in those things that seem to disturb them later; hence the assumption that they never heard of them before.

I guess we could suppose that by putting innocent, uneducated blokes out into the mission field the "church" can operate under plausible deniability if misinformation or omission of information occurs.

Why do you think they send 19 year old boys!!!

[beastie]

This thread now ranks as one of the strangest Iâ??ve ever participated on, and that says a lot. Of course whenever this topic comes up on an internet board with believers and exbelievers, I expect that eventually a few believers will insinuate Iâ??m lying or deluded. That is nothing new. But what I donâ??t remember happening before is basically being told that I was being negligent in joining the church without making an extensive study of church history beforehand â?? even if that required using openly anti-mormon sources. I donâ??t remember any believer ever asserting that the manner in which I joined the church was wrong or negligent. The manner in which I approached and joined the church is exactly the approach that the LDS church wants in its investigators.

I will state again, so that hopefully JeffKâ??s repetition of his erroneous summary of my statements doesnâ??t have undue influence, that I have never expressed doubt that some people do make an extensive study of church history prior to joining. What I have expressed doubt about is that this is what the church wants its investigators to do.

In fact, JeffK, the more I read your posts, the more I suspect you are projecting your experience onto me. It appears that you were involved, in some way, with Baptists who propagated anti-mormon material, and hence, were already aware of controversial issues. Of course Iâ??m aware that Baptists, in the South, have a deep antipathy towards Mormonism and often try to educate their members on the â??evilsâ? of Mormonism (and other targeted faiths). However, I was not raised a Baptist, but rather raised a moderate Methodist, whose family had drifted into inactivity by my teens, anyway. My moderate protestant sect simply did not talk about the evils of other faiths. I did know what we called â??Jesus Freaksâ?, but had no close contact with them in general. I did have one friend who was a â??Jesus Freakâ?, the one who told me that Mormons practiced polygamy, and attended one prayer service with her (there was no preaching, just a bunch of people praying simultaneously for a friend of theirs who had been in a car accident, it was a weird experience, but nothing to do with Mormonism), but that was the extent of the information she offered regarding Mormonism. Just because you were exposed to a lot of anti-mormon information in the South, apparently due to your associations with Baptists, does not mean that every person who lives in the South had the same experience. I didnâ??t. Many of my friends have never been exposed to it, either â?? I know because during the period I was struggling with my faith I confided in my two closest protestant friends, and they were shocked by the things I told them about Mormon beliefs.

Deborah has insinuated I probably knew these things and just forgot that I know. That is invalid for a couple of reasons. First, letâ??s be clear about which â??these thingsâ? are under consideration. As I stated earlier, itâ??s not just that JS practiced polygamy that disturbed me â?? after all, I knew BY and the church as a whole practiced polygamy for a time period. I had a vague awareness of this beforehand, and then an EV friend pointed it out to me during my investigation of the church as well. I asked the missionaries about it and they told me it was to take care of widows and orphans. It was how Joseph practiced polygamy that was so disturbing. He not only lied about it to the world at large, but lied about it to the general membership of the church. On March 30, 1842, Emma read an epistle to the Relief Society sisters, signed by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Hyrum Smith, and Vinson Knight, that stated:

A knowledge of some such things having come to our ears, we improve this favorable opportunity, wherein so goodly a number of you may be informâ??d that no such authority has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let him be treated with utter contempt, and let the curse of God fall on his head, and let him be turned out of Society as unworthy of a place among men, & denounced as the blackest & the most inprincipled wretch, and finally let him be damned!

We do not mention their names, not knowing but what there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skillâ??d in Masonry as to keep a secret, therefore, suffice it to say, there are those, and we therefore warn you, & forewarn you, in the name of the Lord,, to check & destroy any faith that any innocent person may have in any such character; for we do not want any one to believe any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs, & conduct of society; and all persons pretending to be authorizâ??d by us, or having any permit, or sanction from us, are & and will be liars & base imposters, & you are authorizâ??d on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators; Patriarchs, twelve apostles, Elders, Priests, Mayors, Generals, City Counciloors, Aldermen, Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors or the Devil, are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices; and if you yourselves adhere to anything of this kind, you shall also be damnedâ?¦Let this Epistle be had as a private matter in your Society, and then we shall learn whether you are good masons.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qjk02Jxwl...esult#PPA558,M1

Even after having issued such a statement, he allowed the church press to slander and libel Martha Brotherton (and, according to some reports, made the slanderous comments himself in a speech).

He proposed to married women, and sometimes married those women â?? at times without their husbandsâ?? knowledge. He hid his polygamous behavior from Emma the vast majority of times, knowing her deep opposition to the practice.

These are the things I found deeply disturbing. Having clarified which â??these thingsâ? Iâ??m referring to, I have absolute confidence in my memory that I had absolutely no knowledge of these things before joining the LDS church. As Ray has already pointed out, â??these thingsâ? were not easily found â?? if found at all â?? in material available to lay people. In addition, once I found out â??these thingsâ?, I was so deeply disturbed that I revisited the issue that God had never told me JS was a true prophet, and the lack of answer for that question, and my subsequent questions about the truthfulness of the church as the â??one true churchâ?, the only church with the authority of the priesthood of JC, is what finally caused me to lose faith in the LDS church. So the suggestion that I could have known â??these thingsâ? and still have chosen to join the church defies reason and logic.

[beastie]

The fact is it is impossible to be a member of this church for any length of time and not have heard or read some of the things people say they were never told about. But unless you are interested in those things at the time they don't stick. For example we've had all these discussions on the different versions of the First Vision. Now I've gotten church magazines since I've been a member of the church, but I honestly never remembered seeing the article on the various First Visions in the Ensign until someone brought it up here. Apparently it was something that never bothered me so it just didn't register at the time I saw it. We all have a tendency to remember only those things that we are really interested in at the time. The fact is many people in their early years just aren't interested in those things that seem to disturb them later; hence the assumption that they never heard of them before.

I do agree with this to a point. I was a regular reader of the Ensign after joining the church, but I donâ??t remember reading any articles about JSâ?? polygamy or the various versions of the First Vision prior to reading Mormon Enigma.

All human beings suffer from â??confirmation biasâ?, which just means our brains are wired to preferentially recognize â?? and remember â?? information that confirms our already-formed beliefs. So I believed that many women were sealed to JS in name only, and mainly after his death, so apparently if I read one of those Ensign articles, I interpreted that to mean what I already believed.

However, this was after I was already a member. My comments on this thread have mostly been about the period in which I was investigating the church.

Now, hereâ??s the â??to a pointâ? with which I agree with this. Did any Ensign article openly state that Joseph Smith married other menâ??s wives? Did any Ensign article openly state that this often seemed to occur without the husbandâ??s knowledge? Did any Ensign article quote Josephâ??s many denials of polygamy, and then share the libel of women who â??tattledâ??

[littlechild]

I like to think so. For me the omission speaks worse then the issues.

God commanding Joseph to marry a 14 year old girl is no more absurd then God commanding the death of adulterers by stoning.

Peepstones and Burning bushes rate on the same "weirdness scale" IMO.

Yes Joseph married, married women

Yes some were children

Yes god was once a man

Yes polygamy was/is essential

Yes blacks and handicap people were less valiant in the premarital life

Yes the Indians are descendants of the laminates

Yes we will become gods

Yes a peep stone was used to translate the book of Mormon

etc.

And if any of those teachings are wrong they should play the role of the adult.

"Yes these prophets said that, and yes they said that in an official format. But they were wrong, this is why you should rely on personal revelation and not accept everything the Prophets says today as doctrine."

If they did that I would bet they would have inactives come back in record numbers

What is wrong about marrying a 14 year old at a time when it was not uncommon for 10 year olds to be married? Of course times have changed but are you one who wishes to study the topic in context or according to your post modern morality?

So I suppose you also take exception to Abraham's multiple marriages, and Jacob's? And you of course couldn't possibly believe that water can be turned into wine or that God could walk on water? Or that Peter could too (hmmmm, a man behaving as a God......how unlikely!)

To me, it's a miracle that I'm breathing and thinking....me - composed of carbon, hydrogen, and assorted other random elements. Its not much less miraculous than anything else in the scriptures.

[beastie]

What is wrong about marrying a 14 year old at a time when it was not uncommon for 10 year olds to be married? Of course times have changed but are you one who wishes to study the topic in context or according to your post modern morality?

Are you saying that it was not uncommon for 10 year olds to be married in the US in the nineteenth century?

If that is what you are saying, could you provide evidence that supports your assertion?

[Deborah]

However, this was after I was already a member. My comments on this thread have mostly been about the period in which I was investigating the church.

I suppose the disagreement then is whether it was important to have known these things before you joined the church. I don't consider they were. I joined the church because I believed the doctrine and because of the powerful spiritual confirmation I receive that this is where I belong. If the doctrine is true and my spiritual confirmation were true, then I need to look at events in history as the actions of humans with limited understanding and imperfections, not affecting the reasons I joined the church in the first place.

[Bob Crockett]

I do agree with this to a point. I was a regular reader of the Ensign after joining the church, but I donâ??t remember reading any articles about JSâ?? polygamy or the various versions of the First Vision prior to reading Mormon Enigma.

Milton V. Backman Jr., â??Joseph Smithâ??s Recitals of the First Vision,â? Ensign, January 1985, 8â??17. I remember this one well. It was a distillation of his book on the subject.

As a 19-year-old I was able to manage to know quite a bit about Joseph Smith's polygamy. One of my convert families as a missionary was a local leader in the Reorganized Church who converted to the LDS faith once he accept contemporaneous accounts of Joseph Smith's polygamy. But, at the time of my mission Fawn Brodie's work was fairly well known.

[ERayR]

I suppose the disagreement then is whether it was important to have known these things before you joined the church. I don't consider they were. I joined the church because I believed the doctrine and because of the powerful spiritual confirmation I receive that this is where I belong. If the doctrine is true and my spiritual confirmation were true, then I need to look at events in history as the actions of humans with limited understanding and imperfections, not affecting the reasons I joined the church in the first place.

Deborah:

Again you have expressed my thoughts to the point and very acurately. I have come to believe that it would make no difference when most hear these astonishing "facts". Up front or years later the results would have been the same.

[talisyn]

Jacob 2:

I thought this was apt:

Jacob 2

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

If it's not a commandment then it's a sin. If it is commanded then it's not a sin. As far as I know we are not commanded to stone adulterers in this dispensation. However, that was a commanded practice during both Old Testament and New Testament times. As were certain types of slavery, genocide, and animal sacrifices. If we are ever commanded to use these or other Old and/or New Testament practices of the Lord's chosen people would you say no one ever told you about that?

[Billy]

The presumption of deception is itself a lie and a comfort to those who seek self deception rather than responsibility. Missionaries are 19 year old kids and sincere in their beliefs. The only deception foisted upon anyone here is the comical idea that you can blame someone else for your own ignorance and blatant stupidity when choosing a life philosophy and not taking it seriously enough. As a side note, its like a drunken driver blaming the pedestrian for not wearing brighter clothes when they hit someone.

So you don't see any harm if the missionaries present a lopsided presentation of Mormonism, because in the end it is buyer beware, is this your position?