The Great Church History Cover-up

[Scott Lloyd]

"Most" would be an overstatement, but then I have met a lot of people who did not realize that Joseph had plural wives. And many I've spoken to who knew that he practiced polygamy believed erroneously that these were in no way "marriages" but were just "sealings," mostly to older widows.

I'm thinking these are generally those who feel no great eagerness to study Church history, the type Robin Jensen referred to.

[Scottie]

Seminary?

Heh... growing up in Utah, they allowed a "release time" from public school, which really meant "seminary". And EVERYONE knew you took seminary as either your first class or your last class... if you catch my drift.

[wenglund]

I would dare say that very few who have left the church and felt like they were lied to would agree with your assessment of what the problem is.

Naturally.

However, they would agree with me were they to correctly understand the intent and purpose of the gospel and the indirect relevance of history in relation to the verity thereof.

But, then, were that to happen, it would make sense to them to return to living the gospel, since they would get that the gospel is truely for their benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

Heh... growing up in Utah, they allowed a "release time" from public school, which really meant "seminary". And EVERYONE knew you took seminary as either your first class or your last class... if you catch my drift.

Well, I had release time for two of my four years even here in AZ...I get your drift, but again, this goes to the heart of your claim. You claim that the information is hidden; some of us have presented you with out in the daylight examples of how information was not hidden; now you're saying that you didn't avail yourself of those opportunities. How is it the Church's fault that you didn't read the D&C or go to seminary?

[Scottie]

Naturally.

However, they would agree with me were they to correctly understand the intent and purpose of the gospel and the indirect relevance of history in relation to the verity thereof.

But, then, were that to happen, it would make sense to them to return to living the gospel, since they would get that the gospel is truely for their benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The history is tied directly to the truth claims of the church, which are tied directly to the purpose of the gospel. As hard as you try and seperate them, they can't be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Heh... growing up in Utah, they allowed a "release time" from public school, which really meant "seminary". And EVERYONE knew you took seminary as either your first class or your last class... if you catch my drift.

I grew up in Utah too. And those who took seminary just so they could sluff school were, if anthing, a tiny minority. But ttribe is right, they're probably the ones who left the Church and are whining now that they were lied too when the information was available to them all along.

[wenglund]

Exactly.

I wish someone wouldn't have said "so what" and helped me with this.

Sure, I could have done more. Sure, I could have read more. But I didn't. And, apparenly neither have a LOT of people who are now posting stories on RfM.

It's funny to me how JS refusing alcohol before his leg surgery is considered important enough to our salvation to include in lessons, but not JS polygamy.

Apparenly it is more important to the LDS church to be right than to figure out a way to help people.

No, not exactly. You still haven't a clue. It isn't about doing more and reading more about polygamy or whatever historical fact de jure.. It is about LIVING THE GOSPEL. And, the way the Church is intended to help people, is by instructing them on how to LIVE THE GOSPEL--which has nothing to do with reading up and studding certain aspects of Church history.

Again, what will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

Well, I had release time for two of my four years even here in AZ...I get your drift, but again, this goes to the heart of your claim. You claim that the information is hidden; some of us have presented you with out in the daylight examples of how information was not hidden; now you're saying that you didn't avail yourself of those opportunities. How is it the Church's fault that you didn't read the D&C or go to seminary?

Reading the D&C, sure, I'll own that.

However, I HIGHLY doubt that Seminary even mentions plural wives in Nauvoo. And if it does, I'm betting it is whitewashed. Does anyone know what the seminary lesson is on Sec 132?

Huh... interesting...

http://seminary.lds.org/doctrine-and-covenants/

It skips from section 131 right over 132 into 137. Curious.

[jwhitlock]

I don't understand why it is so unbelievable that there are good faithful longstanding members of the Church who are shocked, surprised, and maybe even a little angry, to hear about certain incidents of the past. My parents (aged 68) are BIC Utah Mormons with pioneer heritage who up until 4 years ago didn't know that Joseph Smith had more than a couple of wives; did not know anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre; still don't know anything about the Expositor, etc. The people they associate with in church don't generally know anything about any of it either and won't even entertain the subjects, as they consider "that kind of talk" on the verge of apostasy. These are not uneducated people. Pres. Monson spoke at the funeral of my Dads cousin, "Bow-tie Ben." My parents have also served 3 Senior's missions. So although the Church's history is an open book (more so since the Internet), you can't deny that many Mormons don't know very much about it outside of what they are taught in church. (Who has the time to actually read all the volumes of "History of the Church" that sit prominently on the shelf, amongst the "Journal of Discourses" and other LDS publications? And why delve into them when we have current manuals and teachings? ) What I don't understand is the belligerent attitude, of some people who post on this board, toward people who question whether or not they have been told the truth, as opposed to only the faith promoting part of the truth. Why is this not a valid question? (And yes I understand that each individual has the responsibility for himself in learning these things, but is it a resonable expectation? Do I need to know all the intricacies of Bank of America to open a checking account? Am I not somewhat justified in my surprise or anger when they take my money because the disclosure of such was available if I had sought it out and read it, no matter how obscure?)

Are you related to Ben Lewis? Might have a connection there.

[Lars Umlaut]

But ttribe is right, they're probably the ones who left the Church and are whining now that they were lied too when the information was available to them all along.

Oh, yes, I'm certain. Don't CFR me or anything, but I'm absolutely positive that those who skipped seminary are the same ones who have left the Church and are whining about the Church lying to them. I'm sure of it. Not a doubt in my mind.

[Scottie]

No, not exactly. You still haven't a clue. It isn't about doing more and reading more about polygamy or whatever historical fact de jure.. It is about LIVING THE GOSPEL. And, the way the Church is intended to help people, is by instructing them on how to LIVE THE GOSPEL--which has nothing to do with reading up and studding certain aspects of Church history.

Again, what will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What, exactly, does living the gospel mean? It means DOING THE THINGS JS SAID TO DO!!!

If JS is a fraud, then why should we live the gospel?

How can we know if JS is a fraud if we don't know the history?

[dblagent007]

Care to share the information provided in the manual?

Wow, the Gospel Doctrine manual hardly mentions it at all. The lesson is here. It references pages 62-65 of "Our Heritage" to which there is a link. Neither document says anything about the Expositor. The closest account is from Our Heritage, which says:

On at least 19 different occasions, beginning as early as 1829, Joseph Smith told the Saints that he would probably not leave this life peacefully. While he felt that his enemies would one day take his life, he did not know when. As the spring of 1844 became summer, enemies both within and without the Church worked toward Joseph?s destruction. Thomas Sharp, editor of a nearby newspaper and a leader in Hancock County?s anti-Mormon political party, openly called for the Prophet?s murder. Citizens? groups, apostates, and civic leaders conspired to destroy the Church by destroying its prophet.

[ttribe]

Reading the D&C, sure, I'll own that.

However, I HIGHLY doubt that Seminary even mentions plural wives in Nauvoo. And if it does, I'm betting it is whitewashed. Does anyone know what the seminary lesson is on Sec 132?

Huh... interesting...

http://seminary.lds.org/doctrine-and-covenants/

It skips from section 131 right over 132 into 137. Curious.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else's experience, but I recall a rather detailed discussion in my own class.

BTW, I am willing to concede that the bright light hasn't been shone on one portion of polygamy insomuch as it surprised me when I later found out - polyandry. That being said, I still wouldn't ascribe the seemingly nefarious intent you appear wedded to in this discussion.

[Senator]

... about Joseph's plural marriages. But so what? That bit of history is entirely irrelevant and unnecessary for you and others to come to Christ and become like Christ, growing in character to a fulness of love and joy.

I agree, but it is entirely relevant to whether they will do it through Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

Reading the D&C, sure, I'll own that.

However, I HIGHLY doubt that Seminary even mentions plural wives in Nauvoo. And if it does, I'm betting it is whitewashed. Does anyone know what the seminary lesson is on Sec 132?

Huh... interesting...

http://seminary.lds.org/doctrine-and-covenants/

It skips from section 131 right over 132 into 137. Curious.

What you have linked to is a list of resources, not the lesson manual itself.

Here's the chapter in the lesson manual that includes discussion of Section 132 and plural marriage.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Since I consider at least some of what happens in the Church a "weeding out" process, I'm glad to see the it evidently works well.

[ttribe]

I grew up in Utah too. And those who took seminary just so they could sluff school were, if anthing, a tiny minority. But ttribe is right, they're probably the ones who left the Church and are whining now that they were lied too when the information was available to them all along.

Just to be clear I'm not making a universal statement about all who have left. I'm simply pointing out the problem of laying the blame at the feet of the Church and its leadership, but failing to recognize one's own contribution.

[Scottie]

BTW, I am willing to concede that the bright light hasn't been shone on one portion of polygamy insomuch as it surprised me when I later found out - polyandry. That being said, I still wouldn't ascribe the seemingly nefarious intent you appear wedded to in this discussion.

When did I ever ascribe nefarious intent????

I simply said there is a problem. People feel that they are being lied to and the church refuses to recognize this pattern. Apparenly it is much easier to blame the members for not studying hard enough.

[ttribe]

I agree, but it is entirely relevant to whether they will do it through Joseph Smith

Huh? I'm fully in the Church and on board and I see nothing of my salvation going THROUGH Joseph Smith.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow, the Gospel Doctrine manual hardly mentions it at all. The lesson is here. It references pages 62-65 of "Our Heritage" to which there is a link. Neither document says anything about the Expositor. The closest account is from Our Heritage, which says:

Did you miss this part?

The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.

The Lord?s purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriage

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught: ?For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife. ? [but] if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things? (Jacob 2:27, Jacob 2:30). At various times throughout biblical history, the Lord commanded people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (D&C 132:1).

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.

The Church?s position on plural marriage today

In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1, pages 291?92 in the Doctrine and Covenants; see also the excerpts from addresses by President Woodruff that immediately follow Official Declaration 1).

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church?s position on plural marriage: ?This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. ? If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church? (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

[ttribe]

When did I ever ascribe nefarious intent????

I simply said there is a problem. People feel that they are being lied to and the church refuses to recognize this pattern. Apparenly it is much easier to blame the members for not studying hard enough.

Is there no imputation of nefarious intent to the idea that the Church "refuses" to deal with the "problem" you are highlighting?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just to be clear I'm not making a universal statement about all who have left. I'm simply pointing out the problem of laying the blame at the feet of the Church and its leadership, but failing to recognize one's own contribution.

That's what I'm doing too. Pardon if I wasn't clear.

[Scottie]

Sorry, the link I referenced was NOT the study manual. It was the scripture study.

The actual seminary manual is here

What I could find about plural marriage is:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:58?66?Plural Marriage

As shown in the verse summary for Doctrine and Covenants 132,

verses 58?66 concern ?laws governing the plurality of wives.?

Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord commanded the

practice of plural marriage in the early days of the Church; in

1890, through President Wilford Woodruff, He ended that practice

(see Official Declaration 1). Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

?Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi

and his people were denied the power to have more than one

wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the

Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized

by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it

upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1?28.)

Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives

with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be

valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C.

132:7, 29?66.)

?All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day,

when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they

are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness? (Mormon Doctrine,

578?79; italics in original).

So, while it doesn't outright mention that JS practiced plural marriage, it alludes to it.

[wenglund]

The history is tied directly to the truth claims of the church, which are tied directly to the purpose of the gospel. As hard as you try and seperate them, they can't be.

You really, really, don't get it.

What you are essentially suggesting is that it is not possible for anyone to achieve exaltation without knowing about Joseph's plural sealings/marriages. You couldn't be more wrong.

But, I understand that you have a vested interest in holding to your position, since it is what lead to your loss of faith.

And, as mentioned previously, as long as there are people like you in the Church, who don't actually get what the Church is really all about, and who don't get the indirect role that Church history plays in terms of the verity of the gospel, there will continue to be the unavoidable loss of faith and the kinds of complaints about lesson materials regardless of whatall the Church might do to prevent it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

Is there no imputation of nefarious intent to the idea that the Church "refuses" to deal with the "problem" you are highlighting?

I don't know that I would say it's nefarious. I think it's irresponsible of the church to ignore such a large problem and simply assign blame to those who leave.