The Great Church History Cover-up

[John Williams]

What like the Mother Daughter dou who only ever saw Joseph when he and Emma brought his shirts for starching every other week?

[Edited out crude comment]

So, you're saying that most of these marriages weren't marriages in any sort? Really?

[ttribe]

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

I don't know how accurate the use of the word "majority" is, but I don't entirely understand why there is shock or surprise that at least some of the plural wives were actually wives in every sense of the word.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Who's saying it requires genius IQ? Sometimes it requires background, nuanced explanation, some degree of expertise a sufficient time. Just because all of that can't be provided in a 40-minute time period for a Primary or Sunday School lesson doesn't mean it can't be obtained elsewhere.

[John Williams]

I don't know how accurate the use of the word "majority" is, but I don't entirely understand why there is shock or surprise that at least some of the plural wives were actually wives in every sense of the word.

That wasn't Black Moclips's point, as far as I can tell. His point was that these people didn't even know he had plural wives.

[wenglund]

Since this has yet to be responded to, let me reiterate:

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.

...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]

That wasn't Black Moclips's point, as far as I can tell. His point was that these people didn't even know he had plural wives.

I got that...I think that's nuts, but I got that. I was mostly taking the discussion to the next step in regards to your back-and-forth with Scott Lloyd.

[Scott Lloyd]

That wasn't Black Moclips's point, as far as I can tell. His point was that these people didn't even know he had plural wives.

Something Robin Jensen said to me the other day in an interview about the Joseph Smith Papers comes to mind: "As painful as it is for me to say as a historian, not all members are interested in the history of the Church."

Those who are, however, have no trouble learning this and other facts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Yes it is. I will not accpet what people "heard" if it cannot be backed up by scripture. You are the one that asserted it originally and I am challanging taht assertion. See I am not the one that is try to "deviate". Don't make your self loose even more crediability. The doctrine of polygamy was not instituted because there was a lack of men or that there was more women and the fact that you completly avoided my call for an offical source for this supposed doctrine validates my point even more.

Emma choosing to not follow God's command does not make that command any less from God, what poor logic you are using. So any time a commandment was broken in the bible it is now obvious that that command was really not from God? Is that really what you are saying?

Please for the last time if you cannot back up and show me a single post were I am "hiding from the truth". I will be done with you It is time to put up or shut up.

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.

I didn't call you name. What name did I call you? Please tell me. Yes, your inane questions threaten me so much. Don't give yourself more credit than you deserve. Everything doesn't have to be about you. And I didn't attack you.

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.

So is the church any less true for having known this stuff?

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?

This is so extremely debatable. If you want ot look at was rehashed go to the pundits forum. It is loceted on this very message board. I reject that " "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar," it clearly shows the "translation" of Egyptian was completely wrong".

See what critics like you think is that JS translated the fragments of papryi into the BofA, but that theory cannot even be remotly shown to be true. Like I said go to the pundits forum for a more in depth look at what the EA&G are. The Paprus has been released, what is left of it anyway. They even printed in the Ensign. Go to the Pundits forum. Check out the threads about "Winding Measurments" And the part about Abr 1:12.

Then we will see who is "hiding".

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

Um this is false, as only part of the paprus was burned. Also due to eye witness first hand accounts. But hey I guess you don't care about that as they don't support your agenda. Eye witness accounts (from anti-mormons of the day also with believing members) tell us that there was a long scroll. The fragments we have left cannot reasonably be called a "long scroll". We do not have all of the paprus that JS had. Your book by Charles Larson is not helping you here. I suggest you find a better book.

[John Williams]

I got that...I think that's nuts, but I got that. I was mostly taking the discussion to the next step in regards to your back-and-forth with Scott Lloyd.

From my understanding, which of course may be wrong, it was the majority that were wives, not just association through sealing.

[Scottie]

Who's saying it requires genius IQ? Sometimes it requires background, nuanced explanation, some degree of expertise a sufficient time. Just because all of that can't be provided in a 40-minute time period for a Primary or Sunday School lesson doesn't mean it can't be obtained elsewhere.

You guys can stick your heads in the sand all you want and pretend there isn't a problem. Until you stop fighting it, the RfM exit story section is going to continue to grow with those who left because they felt they were lied to.

I just don't get this need to diminish the problem! I mean, come on... there is OBVIOUSLY a problem, right? I'm first hand proof if you need it. I did not know that JS had married other wives. I thought polygamy didn't start until BY. It shocked me to my core.

You can blame me if you like, or you can look at the PROBLEM in the LDS religion that hundreds of others are dealing with.

[John Williams]

Something Robin Jensen said to me the other day in an interview about the Joseph Smith Papers comes to mind: "As painful as it is for me to say as a historian, not all members are interested in the history of the Church."

Those who are, however, have no trouble learning this and other facts.

Of course. I've never been one of those who thought the church was hiding anything. No, they don't put the troubling stuff out front, but what organization does?

[ttribe]

You guys can stick your heads in the sand all you want and pretend there isn't a problem. Until you stop fighting it, the RfM exit story section is going to continue to grow with those who left because they felt they were lied to.

I just don't get this need to diminish the problem! I mean, come on... there is OBVIOUSLY a problem, right? I'm first hand proof if you need it. I did not know that JS had married other wives. I thought polygamy didn't start until BY. It shocked me to my core.

Help me out here...did you not read the header to D&C 132?

You can blame me if you like, or you can look at the PROBLEM in the LDS religion that hundreds of others are dealing with.

Who's blaming you?

[Zakuska]

So, you're saying that most of these marriages weren't marriages in any sort? Really?

Most? John?

Define Most.

[John Williams]

Most? John?

Define Most.

See my previous post: "most" is at least the majority.

[Zakuska]

"The critics" want LDS to think in crude vulgarities?

When it comes to anything to do with JS. Yes.

Ill tell you what I'll edit the post and go continue my hyatis.

It looks like the Mods already did it for me.

Sorry guys.

Ill return to my corner of Cyber space. I knew there was a reason I quit coming to the boards.

[Scott Lloyd]

Help me out here...did you not read the header to D&C 132?

I have always found it remarkable that some who could never have been bothered to crack open a copy of the scriptures before become voracious consumers of anti-Mormon literature afterward.

[John Williams]

I have always found it remarkable that some who could never have been bothered to crack open a copy of the scriptures before become voracious consumers of anti-Mormon literature afterward.

Did you have someone in particular in mind?

[dblagent007]

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.

The lesson is here. The following paragraph is how the Expositor incident is described in the manual:

Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a "public nuisance" and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.

Whitewashing history? Why would you ever think that?

[notHagoth7]

Something Robin Jensen said to me the other day in an interview about the Joseph Smith Papers comes to mind: "As painful as it is for me to say as a historian, not all members are interested in the history of the Church."

And, "...not all..." may even be a considerable understatement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did you have someone in particular in mind?

Just the general category who claim prior ignorance of the Prophet's practice of plural marriage when it was hidden in plain sight in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just the general category who claim prior ignorance of the Prophet's practice of plural marriage when it was hidden in plain sight in the Doctrine and Covenants.

As I have to say somethings that we "apologist" say don't really help us out much. It is even funnier some of the critics say taht they were lied to about polygamy. I have never understood that one.

[Scottie]

I have always found it remarkable that some who could never have been bothered to crack open a copy of the scriptures before become voracious consumers of anti-Mormon literature afterward.

Yep, all those exit stories at RfM are because they didn't bother to read the scriptures.

I'm work for a manufacturing company. We sell our products to installers who sell it to homeowners. If we design a product that is great in theory, but consistently misused and causes problems, we don't sit and complain that the installers are morons. We think of a better way to build it so that we FIX THE PROBLEM.

I feel like the apologists fail to grasp that simple concept. Regardless of whose fault it is, there IS a problem out there. The church needs to take notice of this and takes steps to rectify THE PROBLEM and quit trying to justify itself by blaming the apostates.

Regardless of whether YOU feel like the church doesn't hide anything, there are a multitude of people who feel like the church does hide information.

[John Williams]

Just the general category who claim prior ignorance of the Prophet's practice of plural marriage when it was hidden in plain sight in the Doctrine and Covenants.

For someone like me who has long known about plural marriage, it still shocks me how many people are unaware of Joseph's practice of it, let alone the details.

[ttribe]

Regardless of whether YOU feel like the church doesn't hide anything, there are a multitude of people who feel like the church does hide information.

And despite the lengths the Church goes to to provide access to that information, it still gets blamed for "hiding" the truth. At what point do you realize you'll never make those folks happy and stop investing in such a losing venture?

[Black Moclips]

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-

Geez, threads move too fast sometimes.

Hello Wade. I think the analogy works when you use it properly = investigating the church vs investigating a new car. There could be lots of potential things about your new car that you don't know unless you ask and seek them out. If a car has a poor side test crash rating, the dealer isn't going to tell you about it unless you ask them. Same thing with the church. If someone can make a momentous life changing commitment after two weeks of discussions with the missionaries (the sales pitch) without ever asking or consulting other information, then fine. Personally, I don't think said individuals should later complain when they find out new information though. I think the situation is tricker with BITC members.

The other issue is that you can't own what is or is not important to an individual when it comes to religion. Something very minor to you may be of some importance to another. I think its very hard to empathize with someone who has an issue with something you personally regard as irrelevant. I think that happens a lot here in these discussions.