The Great Church History Cover-up

[thews]

That is a false statement. Try again.

JS introduced polygamy because God comanned him to do it. I cannot find one reference in scripture that it was because there were more women than men.

You're right... my bad. I should have said the reason polygamy was introduced was because there wasn't enough men (I mistakenly said women). This is what was said to me when I asked about it when I was a Mormon (also added that the men died because of persecution which was also false).

Dont be so .... in your response here.

Oh no they were drinking wine? How could this be? Does any one here have a vaild explination for how JS could drink... gasp... wine in jail???

If you have something to say why not say it? What does "...." mean in the above statement? There's a few instances where Joseph Smith admits to drinking alcohol, but since it wasn't declared a sin until after Joseph Smith's death it wasn't a big deal. Also, the Carthlage "jail" was hardly a standard "jail" but more of a holding room. You imply no one could possibly sneak some wine into the jail, but it wouldn't matter if there were 10 witnesses that wrote about it, because you could always argue the validity of the accounts. The difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable" doubt is up to the person. If you don't want to believe it you won't.

[Wiki Wonka]

Did you print out and show them the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney and her parents (this was written to her parents and is very obvious in its intent if you look at it critically), claiming it was only safe for them (yes it was addressed to all three of them which is a moot point) to come, but only if Emma wasn?t there, and he mentions twice in the letter he is lonely? (no mobs or bad guys, but just if Emma wasn?t there as the only non-safe condition).

Yeah...love letter to the parents...the one where Joseph says "one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads..." Poor Sarah Ann...she's just "&c."

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.

Joseph Smith

More here: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're right... my bad. I should have said the reason polygamy was introduced was because there wasn't enough men (I mistakenly said women). This is what was said to me when I asked about it when I was a Mormon (also added that the men died because of persecution which was also false).

This is still false. Can you find me one verse of scripture or offical source of doctrine were we were told what you claimed above?

I was told the same thing as your but quickly realised that that is not the reason for polygamy. I cannot find an offical source for this doctrine.

If you have something to say why not say it? What does "...." mean in the above statement? There's a few instances where Joseph Smith admits to drinking alcohol, but since it wasn't declared a sin until after Joseph Smith's death it wasn't a big deal. Also, the Carthlage "jail" was hardly a standard "jail" but more of a holding room. You imply no one could possibly sneak some wine into the jail, but it wouldn't matter if there were 10 witnesses that wrote about it, because you could always argue the validity of the accounts. The difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable" doubt is up to the person. If you don't want to believe it you won't.

The .... is me bing nice and obey board guidelines. I also took into account recent GC talks. I decided to turn the other cheek.

You hit the nail on the head. "since it wasn't declared a sin until after Joseph Smith's death it wasn't a big deal." WHy bring it up if it "isnt a big deal".

I just have a problem that you think these little bits of information present a problem. And if they aren't told then people are being duped? It like saying what did Christ eat 3 days before he died? Since that isn't covered the CHristians in the bible are whitewashing their history.

I freely amit that JS drank wine, and it might even have been 19% alcohol. Now what? Is the church less true if some one knows those things? The point isn't that there are 10 reliable accounts that JS drank wine the point is that it doesn't matter that he did.

You are so far off base in what you think I know about things. Do you want to try again?

[wenglund]

In answer to the implied question of the OP:

No. There is no extent to which the Church can go in teaching its history, which will finally appease the critics.

Early on, the Church published portions of its history in periodicals and even in its scriptures. But that wasn't enough. It then established a historical department and published its history by Joseph Smith and the Comprehensive history by B.H. Roberts. But that didn't suffice. Over the years there have been library shelves full of histories and journals and encyclopedias printed and made available to the public. But the critics still complained. The Church also devoted one out of every five yeas of its Sunday curriculum to Church history, and the hue and cry became even louder. Recently, the Church began to include mention of certain hobby-horse aspects of Church history, and commissioned a number of extensive historical works like the Joseph Smith Papers, and that seems not to have quelled the complaints one bit.

You see, it really doesn't matter what the Church does with its history, it will never be enough for certain critics. Even though the Church's published history is one of the most relatively comprehensive of any religion, and one of the most scrutinized of any faith, there will always be room for some people to complain that certain subjects aren't covered extensively enough in various venues, or in the preferred way, or early enough in people's faith journey, or often enough during the faith journey. The critics will always be able to point to not a few members who aren't aware of this or that, and when this or that is pointed out as having been included in the lesson manuals, they can always point to other aspects of Church history that may not be covered (like Mountain Meadows Massacre, treasure hunting, peep stone in hats, etc. etc.). And, so it will go on.

Why? Because it is symptomatic of a core problem--that being, some people just don't get, or have lost sight of, what the restored gospel is really about, and what indirect part history may play in achieving the gospel objective and affirming the verity thereof.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

You're right... my bad. I should have said the reason polygamy was introduced was because there wasn't enough men (I mistakenly said women). This is what was said to me when I asked about it when I was a Mormon (also added that the men died because of persecution which was also false).

If you have something to say why not say it? What does "...." mean in the above statement? There's a few instances where Joseph Smith admits to drinking alcohol, but since it wasn't declared a sin until after Joseph Smith's death it wasn't a big deal. Also, the Carthlage "jail" was hardly a standard "jail" but more of a holding room. You imply no one could possibly sneak some wine into the jail, but it wouldn't matter if there were 10 witnesses that wrote about it, because you could always argue the validity of the accounts. The difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable" doubt is up to the person. If you don't want to believe it you won't.

Let's see, documentation of JS drinking wine throughout his life has been in History of the Church for years. Why is it that you think this is some kind of "gotcha"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's see, documentation of JS drinking wine throughout his life has been in History of the Church for years. Why is it that you think this is some kind of "gotcha"?

I to am interested in why THews thinks this is a "gotcha"?

[notHagoth7]

... or I have to do it...

Most likely.

But rather than reinvent the wheel, some might be willing to share or even grant you rights to translate/publish their pre-existing book in Finnish.

If you find one in English that fits the bill, it wouldn't hurt to ask the author.

[Nomad]

Yeah...love letter to the parents...the one where Joseph says "one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads..." Poor Sarah Ann...she's just "&c."

More here: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"

The only explanation I can see for the fact that some people (such as "thews" above) believe this letter to the Whitneys to be incriminating is that they have read about it somewhere, but have never really read the actual letter themselves. The insinuation that Joseph Smith was, in this letter, encouraging Sarah's parents to drop her off for a little newlywed tryst is borderline comical. But this is the kind of "intelligent and discriminating historiography" I have come to expect from the Prophet's detractors, whether on a message board like this one or in a formal review of the source material like George D. Smith recently produced.

It didn't take long for me to see, again, that it is better for my sanity to stay away from this place.

[Scott Lloyd]

From time to time we are treated to another chorus of the venerable old mantra: the Church "covers up" its history, "hides" all the "embarrassing" bits, and only provides a "whitewashed" version. When it is pointed out that all of the supposedly "embarrassing" bits are available to everyone who troubles themselves to pick up some books and actually read anything, the scope of the cover-up shrinks a bit: it's not that the Church actually "suppresses" those things (thus admitting that the Tanners lied about that) but that it doesn't affirmatively teach them to Primary children.

High on the list of "embarrassing" facts that the Church supposedly "covers up" -- basing this on the jet-engine-toned claims put forward by the accusers -- are three things: plural marriage, the "Expositor" incident, and the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun with him in Carthage Jail, and used it.

Well, yesterday being Sunday (we have to wait another week for Conference) I taught my Primary class the lesson on the martyrdom.

And guess what?

It mentioned the "Expositor" incident. It mentioned the fact that Joseph Smith had a gun with him in Carthage Jail, and used it.

Not only that, but plural marriage was mentioned in passing in a recent lesson.

Now exactly what is the Church trying to "cover up" again?

Regards,

Pahoran

The fact of Joseph having the gun is also in the lesson on the martyrdom in the gospel doctrine teacher's manual for Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, this year's Sunday School course for adults and older youth. Another case of the Church censors being asleep at their posts, I guess.

[Calm]

Most likely.

But rather than reinvent the wheel, some might be willing to share or even grant you rights to translate/publish their pre-existing book in Finnish.

If you find one in English that fits the bill, it wouldn't hurt to ask the author.

Maya, you might want to ask Mike Ash at FAIR about helping translate his Shaken Faith Syndrome into Finnish.

add-on: is this book published by the Church available in Finnish? http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10151&storeId=10151&productId=39893&langId=-1&cg1=13846&cg2=13858&cg3=&cg4=&cg5=&sortId=3&sortOr=1&retURLtext=Back%20to%20'Books,%20Pamphlets,%20and%20Brochures'&retURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldscatalog.com%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FCategoryDisplay%3FcatalogId%3D10151%26amp%3BstoreId%3D10151%26amp%3BcategoryId%3D13858%26amp%3BlangId%3D-1%26amp%3Bcg1%3D13846%26amp%3Bcg2%3D%26amp%3Bcg3%3D%26amp%3Bcg4%3D%26amp%3Bcg5%3D%26pageId%3D1%26pageCt%3D15%26sortId%3D3%26sortOr%3D1

If not, you should use the contact form on lds.org and ask them if it's in the works and if not, why not and if it would be a problem if you did your own translation of parts until it is available.

[Black Moclips]

Does the church deliberately hide/cover up controversial information?

I don't think we can answer with a 100% "yes" or "no" to that question, due to the fact the church is in possession of certain historical documents that no one else has access to. We don't know everything that is contained in those works. There could be controversial information in those works or they could be benign. We don't know. The church could very well be in possession of something controversial and not even know it. Thats definitely possible too. But until the journals and writings held in vaults are made public and available, we can't objectively answer with certainty that they do or do not cover up information.

But, lets pretend that the church does possess a journal that mentions some damaging information regarding the founding of the church. Lets pretend this information casts new light on some events that are foundational in the history of the church. This information has the potential to affect the testimonies of many people. What would the church do with that information? Would it make that information available to the public or keep it hidden in a vault somewhere? I guess we all have our opinions on how it would handle that situation.

But if I were going to go join a new church, and dedicate tons of time, money, and effort to it, I would want to know all I could about it. I would want to know who founded it and why. I would want to know the characters and history of its leaders, and what kind of people they were. I would try to get as much information as I could from objective sources. Sort of like how I go to Edmunds.com when I'm looking to buy a new car. Independent reviewers who don't have a vested stake in what car I buy. I know I can trust them to tell me the good and bad about any make/model. I know I can go to the Ford dealer and have a respresentative sell me on all of the great things about Fords. I know he is going to put Fords in the best kind of light and pretty much avoid anything negative unless I bring it up. He will have (or should have) a plausible reason or answer for those negative issues. That is just the way it is.

I think religions are pretty much the same.

[Black Moclips]

Joseph having a gun in Carthage is high on the list? I find that surprising. What list are you looking at?

With respect to the Expositer, what did the lesson say about it? Did it have the text of the newspaper and go over the claims it was making? Somehow I suspect it didn't, other than to probably say the information was "false" and "inflamatory" and a "nuisance" so it needed to be destroyed.

Same thing about polygamy. I don't doubt that lesson manuals mention the word polygamy in passing. But that is much different than saying the church is fully covering and disclosing the details of what happened. I have family, chapel members who have no idea (they don't believe me when I tell them) that Joseph have 30 or so wives. Have they heard the word polygamy? Yes. Do they have idea of the scope or details behind it? No.

So color me not impressed with these examples. The church may be getting better at disclosure, I just don't think the examples given are evidence of it. Personally, I think the more information out there the better. I think testimonies are stronger when it takes into consideration all the positive and negative information. All the details. But that is just me.

[thews]

The only explanation I can see for the fact that some people (such as "thews" above) believe this letter to the Whitneys to be incriminating is that they have read about it somewhere, but have never really read the actual letter themselves.

Actually Nomad I have read the letter and what FAIR has to say about it, which is to paint a diversion that who it's addressed to is somehow relevant (the letter clearly states "you three" so the point is moot). The "distortions" FAIR also uses are from actual distortions, but IMO are mainly there to divert attention away from what the letter says.

The insinuation that Joseph Smith was, in this letter, encouraging Sarah's parents to drop her off for a little newlywed tryst is borderline comical. But this is the kind of "intelligent and discriminating historiography" I have come to expect from the Prophet's detractors, whether on a message board like this one or in a formal review of the source material like George D. Smith recently produced.

It didn't take long for me to see, again, that it is better for my sanity to stay away from this place.

Is running away from a discussion healthy? Does it make it go away? The letter was instructed to be burned and it clearly states Joseph Smith is lonely and the only condition where it's not safe is if Emma is there. FAIR's argument goes on to say that Emma was "uncomfortable" with polygamy, so that's why it was unsafe. I've heard all the arguments, including the "unsafe" part was due to bad guys etc., which it's clearly not. Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney preety close to her 17th birthday (I think it was the day after), and Sarah's father had 38 wives of his own. "I think Emma won't come tonight..." if Emma didn't come, there was "perfect safety," but only if Emma wasn't there and it was God's will that they come. Sarah's mother wrote how Joseph Smith promised the Whitney's eternal salvation for "giving" her to him. He was 41 I believe, and while I've also heard it argued that is was "normal" for young girls to marry middle-aged men, that also is not true, and clearly it wasn't "normal" back then to have multiple wives. If you'd like ot discuss this further I'll start a new thread or see if one exists about the letter, as this is a very good insight into Joseph Smith as it wasn't intended to be published, and gives a good account of how polygamy was received after it was revealed to Joseph Smith that polygamy was God's will. For the record I can't see how anyone can read it and fail to understand Emma was being deceived.

[Wiki Wonka]

Actually Nomad I have read the letter

Yes, I would imagine so...I just printed it in its entirety earlier in the thread.

..and what FAIR has to say about it, which is to paint a diversion that who it's addressed to is somehow relevant (the letter clearly states "you three" so the point is moot).

So what the letter actually says is "moot." Right, got it. It is a "diversion" to point out what the letter actually says. Never mind who it is addressed to, not only in the header, but throughout the entire letter...you simply declare that it is "moot."

The "distortions" FAIR also uses are from actual distortions, but IMO are mainly there to divert attention away from what the letter says.

Printing the entire contents of the letter and commenting on it is an attempt to "divert attention away from what the letter says?" The article demonstrates using "actual distortions" how others have distorted the very same letter by printing only portions of it in order to make it appear more like a "love letter." The FAIR wiki article prints the entire letter, and prints several distortions of that letter as it is portrayed by others...and you feel that it is FAIR that is trying to create a "diversion" from what the letter actually says?

[Calm]

Is running away from a discussion healthy? Does it make it go away?

Does this mean you plan to answer the question about what is the significant difference between persons and personages anytime soon?

[thews]

This is still false. Can you find me one verse of scripture or offical source of doctrine were we were told what you claimed above?

I was told the same thing as your but quickly realised that that is not the reason for polygamy. I cannot find an offical source for this doctrine.

This isn't about scripture, but facts regarding the letter Joseph Smith wrote. If you believe that polygamy as stated in the D&C was God's idea, then Emma should have been good with her husband taking all his wives. Per the topic of this post (which you seem to continue to try and deviate from), it implies critics are mislead that the church hides its past. The end question to this reply will ask you one question... we'll see if you care to answer it.

The .... is me bing nice and obey board guidelines. I also took into account recent GC talks. I decided to turn the other cheek.

In your book calling names is turning the other cheek? It's sticks and stones and I could care less really, but just wanted to point out how you attack people that ask the questions, as the questions threaten you.

You hit the nail on the head. "since it wasn't declared a sin until after Joseph Smith's death it wasn't a big deal." WHy bring it up if it "isnt a big deal".

I just have a problem that you think these little bits of information present a problem. And if they aren't told then people are being duped? It like saying what did Christ eat 3 days before he died? Since that isn't covered the CHristians in the bible are whitewashing their history.

I freely amit that JS drank wine, and it might even have been 19% alcohol. Now what? Is the church less true if some one knows those things? The point isn't that there are 10 reliable accounts that JS drank wine the point is that it doesn't matter that he did.

You are so far off base in what you think I know about things. Do you want to try again?

I'm not off base. These peices of information are important to understanding what happened and why. When ther Kirkland bank failed, a lot of people lost a lot of money. Joseph Smith was filing for bankrupsy and he had a lot of enemies. When the story is told that makes it seem like the only possible motive for the mob was religious persecution, there weremany possible reasons. The printing press Joseph Smith ordered to be destroyed was publishing his polygamous ways and he didn't like it. Add that to the money people lost with the Kirkland bank failure, and he shot at the mob while calling the secret Masonic distress call in the hopes that there were Masons that would come to his aid, and it paints a different picture than the story most commonly told. Again back to the OP, this is a claim that the church doesn't change or hide its history, and if you can answer the following question it would clear up one big issue I have.

Direct question:

The LDS church was given the papyrus Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham (along with the receipts Emma Smith wrote when she sold them and validated they were in fact the ones Joseph Smith used). When compared to the book written by Joseph Smith "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar," it clearly shows the "translation" of Egyptian was completely wrong. In order to verify this, the LDS church would have to release the papyrus for critical examination. Instead of having this data, the papyrus and Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar are locked away. The question, if you choose to answer the question instead of rewording it, is why the LDS church keeps these documents from being examined/studied?

PS - The papyrus wasn't burned in a fire, as it was recovered from the fire. Why do you suppose it survived the fire?

[Zakuska]

I must say Wiki. Thews waving of the hands and dissmisal of who this "Love Letter" is addressed to make reason stare.

[Black Moclips]

Regardless of how FAIR treats the Expositor episode, Pahoran, in the OP makes the case that the church is clearly not doing any wishwashing or covering up due to the fact that the Expositor was mentioned in his primary lesson. I think we need a little more information about this primary lesson before using it as an example to quiet this "chorus" that Pahoran is listening to.

For example, it could have been taught.....There was a mean and evil newspaper called the Expositor. It was preaching nasty lies about the church. It was so bad the Joseph Smith had it destroyed. Amen.

Or.

There was a newspaper createe by former church members that was circulated in Nauvoo. It charged Joseph Smith and leaders of the church of several different things. The main issues were X, Y, and Z. Various historians, members of the church, and critics have different opinions regarding the truthfulness of the Expositor's accusations. Here is why the church believes the Expositor was wrong about X, Y, and Z...yada yada yada. Looking back, it probably wasn't the best idea to destroy someone else's property, and it certainly wouldn't be legal by today's standards. Amen.

Which lesson shows the church doesn't whitewash history?

[mnn727]

I have family, chapel members who have no idea (they don't believe me when I tell them) that Joseph have 30 or so wives. Have they heard the word polygamy? Yes. Do they have idea of the scope or details behind it? No.

And the funny thing is those making the claim tha JS had 30 or so wives, most of them don't even know that many of those "wives" were sealed to him after his death ---did you?

[John Williams]

And the funny thing is those making the claim tha JS had 30 or so wives, most of them don't even know that many of those "wives" were sealed to him after his death ---did you?

Most people probably don't know that because it isn't true. The 33 wives that Compton documents were married/sealed to Joseph while he was living. Yes, they were later sealed to him in the temple after his death, but that really isn't relevant.

[Scott Lloyd]

Looking back, it probably wasn't the best idea to destroy someone else's property, and it certainly wouldn't be legal by today's standards. Amen.

That line betrays a presentist attitude that is not worthy of a Primary, Sunday School or any other Church-sponsored forum. To explain why would probably take more time out of the scarce 40-minute class period than it is worth. And so we come back to the matter of priorities and appropriate time and setting for discussing this or that matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Most people probably don't know that because it isn't true. The 33 wives that Compton documents were married/sealed to Joseph while he was living. Yes, they were later sealed to him in the temple after his death, but that really isn't relevant.

A good many of them were nothing more than sealings. I wonder if Black MoClip bothers to mention that when enlightening his poor, benighted "chapel" family members.

[John Williams]

A good many of them were nothing more than sealings. I wonder if Black MoClip bothers to mention that when enlightening his poor, benighted "chapel" family members.

And a good many of them, probably the majority, were more than just sealings. That's the part many people are unaware of.

[wenglund]

But if I were going to go join a new church, and dedicate tons of time, money, and effort to it, I would want to know all I could about it. I would want to know who founded it and why. I would want to know the characters and history of its leaders, and what kind of people they were. I would try to get as much information as I could from objective sources. Sort of like how I go to Edmunds.com when I'm looking to buy a new car. Independent reviewers who don't have a vested stake in what car I buy. I know I can trust them to tell me the good and bad about any make/model. I know I can go to the Ford dealer and have a respresentative sell me on all of the great things about Fords. I know he is going to put Fords in the best kind of light and pretty much avoid anything negative unless I bring it up. He will have (or should have) a plausible reason or answer for those negative issues. That is just the way it is.

I appreciate you providing this object lesson to evince my earlier point.

I note with interest, though, that none of your "I would want to know" statements above includes learning the actual intent and purpose of the gospel, how best to live it, and how to rightly determine if it is the best path to take.

But, I do like your analogy. I have actually used it myself on the same topic. It is just that it really doesn't apply, as you may suppose, to the criticisms regarding teaching Church history. In fact, if you really think about it, it actually counters the common criticisms. You see, when you go to Edmunds.com, you are looking for relevant information that pertains to the operation of the vehicle and the sentiments of the owners regarding how their Ford worked for them. It would seem rather inane to expect Edmunds to have a section on whether the founder of Ford was married to more than one wife, or whether the founder engaged in what some may consider "magic", or if the founder, as a part of his civic duties, ever ordered the distruction of a printing press, or a host of other historical things entirely irrelevant to how the Ford performs and whether it can do for consumers as promised. Yet, that is what the critics expect of the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

That line betrays a presentist attitude that is not worthy of a Primary, Sunday School or any other Church-sponsored forum. To explain why would probably take more time out of the scarce 40-minute class period than it is worth. And so we come back to the matter of priorities and appropriate time and setting for discussing this or that matter.

I don't get why apologists act as if the history of the church requires some kind of genius IQ to comprehend.

It's really not that hard. The expositor could be explained in 2 minutes. Consig explained it in his class, and I'm betting almost everyone got it... even those whose IQ's are below 160.

I love this thinking that the history is SO wrapped up in complexities that the average person couldn't possibly understand. Ergo statements like, "Would you teach advanced calculus to a first grader?" As if the history of the church is on par with advanced calculus. I'd say it's more like double digit addition. Does it require some knowledge first? Sure... but not much.