The Great Church History Cover-up

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I meant to say that any who may have skipped their seminary classes or failed to pay attention in Church meetings and classes where they might have received the instruction hardly have cause to complain later about it having been hidden from them.

[Scottie]

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.

Just saw this, and yes, you're right. The link was incorrect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Plural marriage as discussed in the Church today:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08/plural-marriage-as-discussed-in-church.html

[Scott Lloyd]

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:

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

Thank you for correcting your error.

[ttribe]

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.

Fine...but it was really beside the point I was making.

[dblagent007]

I think the heart of the problem is that the Church discourages people from reading materials that show the Church or Church leaders in an unfavorable light or that would weaken faith. A LOT of members interpret this as counsel to avoid history books like Mormon Enigma, In Sacred Loneliness, and even Rough Stone Rolling (I had a guy tell me he stopped reading it in the very beginning because it made Joseph Smith out to be a believer in magic and treasure seeking, which he of course knew was false!). The stuff taught in Church barely mentions it so they really end up being sheltered from the history.

A very close relative won't read any of the history books, Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. because she feels that doing so goes against the counsel of Church leaders. I remember distinctly feeling that I was disobeying that counsel when I first typed "Mormon" into Google back in 2004 to see what I found (Bob McCue's website and a discussion about polyandry - yeah, mind blowing to say the least).

It gets worse. When people finally find out about all the warts - only after disobeying the counsel of Church leaders - then they are condemned by apologists because they should have taken the initiative and learned it before! Before, they thought they were following God's counsel by ignoring it.

It is a definite catch 22.

[Scottie]

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-

Yep, it's quite possible that you will not go to heaven if you don't learn about the history of the church and realize that the LDS church is a man-made church, thus keeping you from joining the REAL true church (whichever one that might be).

I wonder... do you believe there would be any value in the FLDS members learning about the schism which split the church in two? Or should they just keep in the moment and disregard how and why the FLDS split? If they did learn the real reasons why the FLDS split, and they converted to LDS, would you applaud them for discovering the truth while the FLDS demonized them for succumbing to insignificant facts that have nothing to do with their salvation?

[wenglund]

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?

Wrong. Living the gospel is DOING THE THINGS THAT CHRIST HAS SAID TO DO, as revealed through prophets and teachier like JS and through the Holy Ghost.

And, how do we know if Christ's teachings and commandments are true. Well, not by informing ourselves about irrelevant aspects of Church history. Rather, it comes by DOING what Christ said to DO. In other words, we come to know of the truth of the gospel by LIVING THE GOSPEL.

Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scottie]

Wrong. Living the gospel is DOING THE THINGS THAT CHRIST HAS SAID TO DO, as revealed through prophets and teachier like JS and through the Holy Ghost.

And, how do we know if Christ's teachings and commandments are true. Well, not by informing ourselves about irrelevant aspects of Church history. Rather, it comes by DOING what Christ said to DO. In other words, we come to know of the truth of the gospel by LIVING THE GOSPEL.

Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh huh.

[Senator]

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

Then all your salvific ordinances performed are as the dust. All the keys needed to perform them came through Joseph S.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the heart of the problem is that the Church discourages people from reading materials that show the Church or Church leaders in an unfavorable light or that would weaken faith.

Can you supply a few references to illustrate this?

A very close relative won't read any of the history books, Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. because she feels that doing so goes against the counsel of Church leaders.

And yet, she's wrong. Church leaders haven't counseled us not to read history books.

It gets worse. When people finally find out about all the warts - only after disobeying the counsel of Church leaders - then they are condemned by apologists because they should have taken the initiative and learned it before! Before, they thought they were following God's counsel by ignoring it.

It is a definite catch 22.

Why do I feel, somehow, that I'm being carefully outfitted in straw?

[ttribe]

Then all your salvific ordinances performed are as the dust. All the keys needed to perform them came through Joseph S.

My salvific ordinances hold sway because of the Atonement of Christ. That JS was the vessel for their restoration is ancillary.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Sorry to hear that they're deluding themselves.

I work for a manufacturing company, too. Guess what? You can't solve a problem until you identify the real source of the problem. And guess what again? The problem isn't with the Church.

[justdreamin]

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.

Yes, his wife is my Dad's first cousin. Are you related?

I really wish someone would respond to my question...

[wenglund]

Yep, it's quite possible that you will not go to heaven if you don't learn about the history of the church and realize that the LDS church is a man-made church, thus keeping you from joining the REAL true church (whichever one that might be).

Would that "REAL true church" be the "Church of History that has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ?"

If so, and if it doesn't exist now, maybe you could start it. Certainly, you have a number of potential converts at RFM.

I wonder... do you believe there would be any value in the FLDS members learning about the schism which split the church in two? Or should they just keep in the moment and disregard how and why the FLDS split? If they did learn the real reasons why the FLDS split, and they converted to LDS, would you applaud them for discovering the truth while the FLDS demonized them for succumbing to insignificant facts that have nothing to do with their salvation?

The only thing that I would wish for the FLDS, is that they live the gospel and follow the promptings of the Spirit. If that leads them back to or into the LDS faith, then great. But, I could care less whether they learn about the schism in their own faith--if they don't already know about it, and I would be somewhat concerned if they converted to the LDS faith upon learing about it. It doesn't make sense to believe in the verity of the LDS gospel based on a schism in the FLDS Church. Instead, it should be based on the Spirit confirming that the gospel taught by the LDS is true, and/or the truth thereof being confirmed through living the gospel as taught by the LDS Church.

Now do you get it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

Why do I feel, somehow, that I'm being carefully outfitted in straw?

Because you're familiar with the feeling.

[dblagent007]

Can you supply a few references to illustrate this?

Are you saying that I am wrong? In the meantime, I will look for some examples.

And yet, she's wrong. Church leaders haven't counseled us not to read history books.

Well, yeah. That would be a blatant source of criticism. Instead, Church leaders simply encorage people to avoid things that don't build faith, show Church leaders in an unfavorable light, etc. It's not too hard to understand how members (including me back in the day) view this as counsel to avoid books, history or not, that discuss JS's polyandry.

Why do I feel, somehow, that I'm being carefully outfitted in straw?

Whenever these hiding Church history discussions come up, many of those defending the Church rely on the argument that the history is widely available and it is your own fault that you have not learned about it. How is that a stawman?

[Senator]

My salvific ordinances hold sway because of the Atonement of Christ.

A hearty Amen to that!

That JS was the vessel for their restoration is ancillary.

THEN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LETS STOP SINGING PRAISE TO THE MAN AT EVERY PRIESTHOOD OPENING!!

On a more serious note, though subordinate to the Savior, Joseph S. is essential to our contemporary claims on salvation. There's no getting around it.

[ttribe]

A hearty Amen to that!

Glad to hear it.

THEN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LETS STOP SINGING PRAISE TO THE MAN AT EVERY PRIESTHOOD OPENING!!

Actually, I don't disagree...not a fan of the hymn...but I get its historical significance so I leave it as an "Oh well."

On a more serious note, though subordinate to the Savior, Joseph S. is essential to our contemporary claims on salvation. There's no getting around it.

I think I get what you are saying, but at the end of the day (to use a tired phrase), it's not Joseph Smith I need faith in, it's whether my prayers have been answered regarding the substantive issues of the Restoration.

[Scott Lloyd]

THEN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LETS STOP SINGING PRAISE TO THE MAN AT EVERY PRIESTHOOD OPENING!

We do it because of his greatness and because we owe him so much in gratitude. Plus, it's a cool song. Get used to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whenever these hiding Church history discussions come up, many of those defending the Church rely on the argument that the history is widely available and it is your own fault that you have not learned about it. How is that a stawman?

The straw man is that the Church tells its members not to read history. That's quite false.

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you saying that I am wrong?

Yes.

In the meantime, I will look for some examples.

Please do.

Well, yeah. That would be a blatant source of criticism. Instead, Church leaders simply encorage people to avoid things that don't build faith, show Church leaders in an unfavorable light, etc. It's not too hard to understand how members (including me back in the day) view this as counsel to avoid books, history or not, that discuss JS's polyandry.

I have never, ever, felt that the Church was telling people to avoid history books. Not ever.

Whenever these hiding Church history discussions come up, many of those defending the Church rely on the argument that the history is widely available and it is your own fault that you have not learned about it. How is that a stawman?

It's not. It's the truth, and it's my position.

The straw man consists not merely in that selected portion of what you said, but in the entirety of what you said: The Church, you said, tells us not to read history books and then the Mopologists fault us when, having read nothing, we're surprised by our history. I flatly deny that the Church has ever encouraged us to be ignorant of our history.

[ttribe]

The straw man consists not merely in that selected portion of what you said, but in the entirety of what you said: The Church, you said, tells us not to read history books and then the Mopologists fault us when, having read nothing, we're surprised by our history. I flatly deny that the Church has ever encouraged us to be ignorant of our history.

I'm anticipating a response that incorporates some quote mining involving Boyd K. Packer and/or Dallin H. Oaks...let's see what happens.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm anticipating a response that incorporates some quote mining involving Boyd K. Packer and/or Dallin H. Oaks...let's see what happens.

Let me help them out: "The Mantle Is Greater than the Intellect" and "Some things that are true are not useful" and other assorted snippets torn from their context.

In case they would care to read the entire talk in context and not just excerpts found on some antagonistic Web site or other, here's a link.

[ttribe]

Let me help them out: "The Mantle Is Greater than the Intellect" and "Some things that are true are not useful" and other assorted snippets torn from their context.

BINGO!