The Great Church History Cover-up

[justdreamin]

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-

Wade, I think I will probably regret responding to you, but this is an honest question and I'm hoping you can shine the light for me, so to speak.

If we do the things that Christ has asked us to do, which we can most likely agree are found in the Bible and Book of Mormon (with the Holy Ghost), then I don't think there is any arguement about what kind of people we should be. When we add to that the relvelations of the D&C and PoGP, we then go down a path that devides us from mainstream Christianity because of added doctrine, such as plural marriage, the divisions of heaven, the law of consecration and so forth. (Not that that is a bad thing.) We also believe in doctrine that is not fully described in the scriptures, such as the ordinaces of the Temple and such. There are also volumes upon volumes of discourses by the Prophets. Some of what they have said we continue to teach, as evidenced by the manuals the Church publishes, but much of what they teach is either ignored or, if it doesn't seem congruent with more widely accepted doctrine, we say that they were giving their opinion or speaking as men and not Prophets. Also, things that have been taught as doctrine in the past give way to new ideas and concepts as the Church grows, although it is rare that a Prophet will state "We do not believe that ....., now we believe......" So when you state that that living the Gospel is as easy as doing what Christ says to do, it's not an easy task to figure out what exactly He has said, who He has said it to, and if it's current or not. It's not so much the "history", it's trying to make sense of what we really believe and what we don't, and that is not easy, in fact in some instances it's impossible. So my question is this, can you see how a person would have difficulty believing that the Church is "true", if past teachings don't mesh with current teachings, and not much is said explaining why? Should we just live our conscious and keep our mouths shut? Is there not anything to be gained by discussing it??

[wenglund]

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.

I can't imagine anyone here finding this "unbelievable", particularly since we have interacted with not a few of these people over the last decade or so.

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.

I don't believe anyone here would deny this.

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?

It's not so much that it is invalid as it may be open, itself, to questions of relevance and priority in terms of the purpose of the Church.

(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?)

It depends. Would you be justified in being suprised and even angered were you to have discovered that the founder of the Bank of America had more than one wife, and this regardless of your checking account working for you just fine and just as explained?

As mentioned in various related thread, the responsibility of the Church and its curriculum department, is to design lesson material that will best meet the intended purpose of the Church (i.e. bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him) in the time alotted. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree over what historical material may be best suited for achieving the stated objective, and how much it should be the focus and how frequently it should be iterated, but as long as a reasonable effort has been made in that regard, there ought to be little or no cause for

complaint against the Church. I believe the Church has aptly met that charge.

Unfortunately, as Scottie and others evince, such reasonable efforts will not suffice in preventing people from losing faith because of historical matters that they mistakenly suppose have relevance to the restored gospel, but were not taught (and this because the Church did not think it relevant).

As indicated earlier in the thread, I don't know that this can be avoided, regardless of what the Church may put in its lesson material. People are going to believe or disbelieve what they will and for whatever reason. And, the only thing that may be done about it is to try and disabuse those who have lost faith of their mistaken suppositions--which as indicated on this thread alone, is not easy.

I hope this helps.

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

I just granted you your wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Glad to hear it.

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."

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.

Indeed, I can not place culminating faith in Joseph. For he is a man, and all men fail. But I must place substantive trust that in fact he saw the things that he said he saw, communed with those who he said he did, and had hands laid on him as proclaimed. For the believer all roads lead back to faith in the matter.

[Pahoran]

When you mentioned plural marriage, did you also claim that there weren?t enough women and that?s why Joseph Smith introduced polygamy?

No. I did not.

I didn't even say that plural marriage was introduced because there weren't enough men.

The manual simply pointed out that there was a time in Church history when some of the members were permitted to have more than one wife.

Did you also tell them that Joseph Smith had many wives, some as young as 14 and 15, and he would give them 24 hours to decide whether or not to marry him? Or that he would promise the girl's parents eternal salvation for "giving" him their daughter?

I did not mention any of the irrelevant and trivial factoids that anti-Mormons get hung up about, no.

My one-sentence mention of the topic left out a lot of detail. (One-sentence mentions tend to do that.) For example, it did not mention the Edmunds-Tucker Act, or any of the other barbarities that the Saints endured because of plural marriage.

But not even an anti-Mormon could be irrational enough to conclude that I must therefore be trying to "cover up" anything about that.

Or could you?

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

See above.

(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).

See above.

And exactly how is that a "moot point?" Just because you say so?

The fact that you are trying to pre-empt the fatal objection to the standard anti-Mormon asinumption that the letter was setting up a tryst is not exactly overwhelming evidence of good faith on your part.

Did you mention polyandry and that Joseph Smith married women that he?d sent their husbands off on far away missions? Did you mention that Joseph Smith accused Emma of trying to poison him after he introduced polygamy?

Again, see above.

Regarding the Carthage jail, did you mention Joseph Smith wasn?t wearing his sacred undergarments when he was shot?

No. How could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson? But in a recent Family Home Evening lesson on the martyrdom, I did mention that Willard Richards was the only one of the four men in the jail to be wearing his garments at the time.

Did you also mention that he and his brother and the others there were drinking wine in the jail?

No. How could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson?

Did you mention exactly what Joseph Smith said as the mob stormed in which included the Masonic Grand Hailing Sign of Distress is "Oh Lord, My God, is there no help for the widow's son?"

No, because that would have been a lie. (Not that I have any reason to suppose you would disapprove.) It is likely that Joseph was starting to say that, but the fact is that he did not get a chance to finish it.

But there is no "cover-up" in view. Do you think there is something morally reprehensible about Joseph attempting to say that?

And how could that possibly be relevant to a Primary lesson?

In response to this post, I find the versions told do not encompass the entire truth, but only parts of it.

Well, duh!

Two points to that facile observation: (1) There is no version of a historical event that "encompasses the entire truth" about that event. This is an unquestioned truism of historiography; and (2) The anti-Mormon "versions told do not encompass the entire truth, but only parts of it," heavily intermingled with rumour, conjecture, half truths and outright falsehoods.

Does that explain why you prefer them?

If you want to believe Joseph Smith didn?t marry 14 and 15 year old girls, then you can probably find a way to rationalize it as symbolic, but if you read the actual letter he wrote to Sarah Ann Whitney there is no doubt Emma was being deceived. Would you agree?

No, I would not. I suggest you look up "necessary evidence" and "sufficent evidence" and understand the difference between them. Avoiding confronting Emma with the fact that a plural spouse was visiting him is only necessary evidence of deception; it is not sufficent evidence. Seeing only necessary evidence, and then leaping to a conclusion demonstrates an eagerness to believe the worst.

(Note ? I can find actual pictures of this letter if you want, but I?m not sure about the rules regarding what?s off limits).

Then I suggest you read the board guidelines. Temple matters and salacious speculation about the private lives of others are off limits. The facts are not.

regards,

thews

(PS - I come from a polygamous heritage in the 1800's)

And this is supposed to intimidate me, is it? Walter Ralston Martin was a "descendant of Brigham Young."

Only he wasn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

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.

No, you can't make me

[dblagent007]

Can you supply a few references to illustrate this?

Okay, here are a few examples:

Carlos Asay, Opposition to the Work of God, Ensign, Nov. 1981.

"Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit."

Vaughan J. Featherstone, The Last Drop in the Chalice, BYU Devotional, Mar. 1985.

"Elder Packer said, ?They leave the Church but they can?t leave it alone? (Utah State University baccalaureate address). They publish theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit. None of it is worth casting an eye upon. Do not read the anti-Mormon materials. That is not the way you resolve questions about the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Simply go back and read and ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon and you will know it is true."

What would you do, The New Era, May 1973.

Question was asked whether someone should read anti-Mormon material. Answers were selected that respond with a strong no.

M. Russel Ballard, Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers, Ensign, Nov. 1999.

"Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God?s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce."

The ban on allowing Newel and Avery speak in any meetinghouse after Mormon Enigma was published gave the impression that they had done something seriously wrong by writing it and that members probably shouldn't read it.

The statement on symposia, which most people knew was referring to Sunstone, gave most members the impression that they should avoid not just attending the symposia but even reading the magazine.

Edit: I think I fixed the links.

[justdreamin]

I just granted you your wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you. I responded to you in another area before I read your answer to this. I appreciate your kind response.

This issue of history and past teachings in the church is affecting my family in a negative way. Because of genetics, I presume, we all "think too much", and don't naturally possess the gift of faith (which could be a new topic altogether). Without faith, it's more than difficult to be a member of any church, but because we were all born and reared in the LDS church many of us continue to lean on the faith of others, while some have given up due to the inability to reason it all out and are now in limbo, for lack of a better word. I joined this board hoping to express the issues that have come up in discussion with members of my family and to hear how others have worked it all out...or not.

[Scottie]

I don't know how I came to believe this, but I do know that I viewed anything that painted the church in a bad light as if it were diseased.

I encouraged my mom to read RSR, and she said that after the first few pages she couldn't read it anymore.

It would be interesting to know where this comes from.

[dblagent007]

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.

Okay, after you accused me of a stawman, I am actually a bit surprised that you hoisted one on me. I never said that the Church "tells us not to read history books." I agree that the Church has never said that. However, members read what Church leaders have said (some of which I posted above) and interpret that as counsel not to read books that challenge faith. Some history books challenge faith so members don't read them.

I grew up thinking Mormon Enigma was in the same league as "The Godmakers" because they both challenged faith. I didn't learn until later that one is history and one is fabrication.

I am just stating what I perceive as fact. I don't think I have offered any indictment of the Church over this state of affairs. I am just saying that it exists.

[Pahoran]

Okay, here are a few examples:

And clearly they are the best you could come up with.

Carlos Asay, Opposition to the Work of God, Ensign, Nov. 1981.

"Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit."

Vaughan J. Featherstone, The Last Drop in the Chalice, BYU Devotional, Mar. 1985.

Holy huge URL, Batman!

"Elder Packer said, ?They leave the Church but they can?t leave it alone? (Utah State University baccalaureate address). They publish theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit. None of it is worth casting an eye upon. Do not read the anti-Mormon materials. That is not the way you resolve questions about the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Simply go back and read and ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon and you will know it is true."

What would you do, The New Era, May 1973.

Question was asked whether someone should read anti-Mormon material. Answers were selected that respond with a strong no.

M. Russel Ballard, Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers, Ensign, Nov. 1999.

"Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God?s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce."

The ban on allowing Newel and Avery speak in any meetinghouse after Mormon Enigma was published gave the impression that they had done something seriously wrong by writing it and that members probably shouldn't read it.

The statement on symposia, which most people knew was referring to Sunstone, gave most members the impression that they should avoid not just attending the symposia but even reading the magazine.

And in all of that, not one word about ignoring or not studying history.

I guess what you don't understand, Double-minded, is that anti-Mormon propaganda is not history.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

I don't know how I came to believe this, but I do know that I viewed anything that painted the church in a bad light as if it were diseased.

I encouraged my mom to read RSR, and she said that after the first few pages she couldn't read it anymore.

It would be interesting to know where this comes from.

Geesh...did you tell her she could buy RSR at Deseret Book?

[dblagent007]

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

Predictions: Black Moclips 1 Ttribe 0 (and I didn't read your post before responding).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I flatly deny that the Church has ever encouraged us to be ignorant of our history.

I do as well as I distinctly recall several GC talks were we were cousnled to read our history.

[ttribe]

Predictions: Black Moclips 1 Ttribe 0 (and I didn't read your post before responding).

I know...I'm disappointed.

[dblagent007]

And clearly they are the best you could come up with.

Yup. Thirty minutes of searching and I found all there is to find. Nothing else there. /sarcasm

Holy huge URL, Batman!

LOL. Yeah, I fixed that.

And in all of that, not one word about ignoring or not studying history.

If only I would have claimed that it contained statements that members should "not study history."

[Pahoran]

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.

No it's not.

It's going to continue to grow with those who left the Church for whatever reason, and then learned to recite the canned script about how they were supposed to have left because they thought 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.

So you skived off Seminary -- and that's the Church's fault.

Got it.

As soon as you are ready to take responsibility for your own choices, we will welcome you back.

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.

The "problem" being that we can't force-feed people who don't want to be fed.

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

Whitewashing history? Why would you ever think that?

Why anyone would actually think it is anyone's guess, since the paragraph you quoted is accurate in its essentials. That the claim is a manufactured one, that cynically and knowingly exploits the fact that no brief summary of a historical event can possibly cover all of the ground that a hostile observer would like to see covered, is patently obvious.

What lengths has the church gone to?

JS is STILL portrayed as only being married to Emma. On lds.org, are ANY of his plural wives listed, or just Emma?

On lds.org, are there ANY denials of Joseph engaging in plural marriage?

Breathe in. Breathe out. Repeat after me: there is no conspiracy. Keep breathing.

JS is still portrayed as reading the golden plates.

Now: whatever you do, keep going without a pause. It wouldn't do for any of your readers to have time to reflect upon the fact that the Church doesn't paint pictures, artists do.

The quote above stating that the Expositor was full of "lies"??

Which in fact it was.

Oh yes... what AMAZING lengths!!

I'm glad you appreciate the irony.

So, critics are called out for saying that the LDS hides the history, then when apologists are presented with an example of the church outright lying to its members, it's okay??

Except that no such example has been presented.

Are you not mortified and appalled at your church for publishing outright fabrications??

No.

If I took your approach to things, I might work myself up into a state of high dudgeon that a participant in my thread is posting outright fabrications.

However, I accept that it is possible for people, acting in good faith, to take different -- even opposing -- views of the same question.

Do you accept that?

Or do you believe the Expositor WAS full of lies?

Yes.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

When I was on my mission back in the late 70's, we showed a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It told about how someone (Cyrus Wheelock, I believe) smuggled a gun in to Joseph while he was in Carthage Jail. We showed this filmstrip to every investigator. I'm kind of surprised that folks make a big deal about the gun these days.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, here are a few examples:

Carlos Asay, Ensign, Nov. 1981.

"Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit."

Vaughan J. Featherstone, BYU Devotional, Mar. 1985.

"Elder Packer said, ?They leave the Church but they can?t leave it alone? (Utah State University baccalaureate address). They publish theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit. None of it is worth casting an eye upon. Do not read the anti-Mormon materials. That is not the way you resolve questions about the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Simply go back and read and ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon and you will know it is true."

What would you do, The New Era, May 1973.

Question was asked whether someone should read anti-Mormon material. Answers were selected that respond with a strong no.

M. Russel Ballard, Ensign, Nov. 1999.

"Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God?s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce."

The ban on allowing Newel and Avery speak in any meetinghouse after Mormon Enigma was published gave the impression that they had done something seriously wrong by writing it and that members probably shouldn't read it.

The statement on symposia, which most people knew was referring to Sunstone, gave most members the impression that they should avoid not just attending the symposia but even reading the magazine.

I was hoping that you would share something with me in which the Brethren declared that Church members should avoid history books.

Do you have anything along those lines?

I suppose it's possible to imagine that, by "those who would tear down your faith" and "faith-killers," the Church meant to refer to historians like Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, James Allen, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, but I'm having a really difficult time doing it.

Are Leonard Arrington and Jill Derr and Stanley Kimball and Dean Jessee and Ron Walker and Carol Cornwall Madsen really to be reckoned among "those who speak and publish in opposition to God's true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce"? I confess that the thought had never entered my head.

And it had never occurred to me to regard Sunstone as a historical journal.

It's maybe slightly more believable to suppose that the folks who "leave the Church but . . . can't leave it alone" might include Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe, but, candidly, I just can't quite get my mind around the idea that the Brethren regard books and journals of history as "anti-Mormon materials," let alone as "theological pornography."

[ttribe]

When I was on my mission back in the late 70's, we showed a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It told about how someone (Cyrus Wheelock, I believe) smuggled a gun in to Joseph while he was in Carthage Jail. We showed this filmstrip to every investigator. I'm kind of surprised that folks make a big deal about the gun these days.

But...but...a REAL martyr wouldn't actually try to defend himself or his friends! He'd just stand there and take it! Or something like that.

[Wiki Wonka]

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

From here on out, I hereby declare that everything that I don't want to acknowledge is simply "moot."

[dblagent007]

I was hoping that you would share something with me in which the Brethren declared that Church members should avoid history books.

Well, I never made that claim. And actually, I'm glad they didn't.

Do you have anything along those lines?

No, because I never said that the "Brethren declared that Church members should avoid history books."

I suppose it's possible to imagine that, by "those who would tear down your faith" and "faith-killers," the Church meant to refer to historians like Richard Bushman, Davis Bitton, James Allen, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, but I'm having a really difficult time doing it.

If those things undermine someone's faith (and they do for some), then why not?

I have mentioned RSR to a total of four or five people. None of them had read it except one. He said he read it and stopped early on because the book made it sound like JS believed in magic, treasure seeking, etc. He also said that he talked with a CES friend of his who told him that Elder Packer said it was trash. That was enough for him.

Are Leonard Arrington and Jill Derr and Stanley Kimball and Dean Jessee and Ron Walker and Carol Cornwall Madsen really to be reckoned among "those who speak and publish in opposition to God's true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce"? I confess that the thought had never entered my head.

I don't think most members distinguish "history" from "anti-Mormon" materials. When it comes to following the counsel given by Church leaders, material that challenges their faith, like ISL or Mormon Enigma (especially when the authors are told they can't speak in Church), gets put in the do not read bucket because it tears down faith. If it is Truman Madsen or Susan Easton Black then those are okay because they strengthen faith. Whether it is history or not is only secondary.

It's maybe slightly more believable to suppose that the folks who "leave the Church but . . . can't leave it alone" might include Dan Vogel or Brent Metcalfe, but, candidly, I just can't quite get my mind around the idea that the Brethren regard books and journals of history as "anti-Mormon materials," let alone as "theological pornography."

My point doesn't concern what the brethren may regard as "anti-Mormon materials" or "theological pornography." Rather, what do the members regard as those things after hearing the brethren say that stuff. Unfortunately, I think many members feel that it includes an awful lot of history.

[jwhitlock]

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

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

My wife's mother is also a cousin of his wife.

I'll send you a PM and we'll see if we can get the link figured out - so we don't derail this.

[Black Moclips]

I'm curious as to the objective claims of the Expositor. Pahoran says he believes the Expositor was full of lies. Which is different than saying there was no truth in what was claimed. Basically the writers of the Expositor are saying they are witnesses to certain issues regarding the church leadership, specifically Joseph Smith. I browsed through the text looking for specific claims. I found the following:

1) A big portion of the text deals with young women being presented before Joseph Smith and/or the apostles and being propositioned with the idea of being a "spiritual wife" of one of them.

2) "We do not believe that God ever raised up a Prophet to christianize a world by political schemes and intrigue". In looking at a related article, it appears that Quinn believes this was the real reason the press was destroyed, not because of the outing of polygamy. Apparently Joseph was upset that the Council of 50 outed him being a "king" and his designs at setting up a theocracy, and that was the sensitve information that he wanted silenced.

3) There were also several paragraphs talking about certain people being ex'd from the church without knowing about it until afterwards and not having a chance to state their case or face their accusers.

Of course, a lot the text of the document is taken up by what they think of the church, why they are publishing the article, etc. Certainly stuff you can disagree with, but pretty subjective.

Anyway, in a 10 minute reading, this is what I picked out. What was false? What was a lie? How do we know? What parts were true? We know polygamy was being kept a secret. We do know young women were propositioned, claiming revelation. We do know there was a council of 50 and that Joseph had political ambitions. What can be proven false, what can be proven true, and what is subjective information?

[dblagent007]

Black Moclips, you need to distinguish between statements of fact and opinion. In past discussions, many people identified the negative opinions of Joseph Smith as being the lies (the Expositor is chock full of that stuff). I think it would be more interesting to know what false statements of fact it contained.

Basically, the factual statements could be divided into three categories:

1. Those that are true - there is persuasive corroborating evidence that these statements are true.

2. Those may be true or false - these statements are alleged in the expositor, but there is no evidence to corroborate or refute them.

3. Those that are false - there is persuasive evidence that refutes the statements.

This may be a topic for another thread.

[Black Moclips]

Black Moclips, you need to distinguish between statements of fact and opinion. In past discussions, many people identified the negative opinions of Joseph Smith as being the lies (the Expositor is chock full of that stuff). I think it would be more interesting to know what false statements of fact it contained.

Basically, the factual statements could be divided into three categories:

1. Those that are true - there is persuasive corroborating evidence that these statements are true.

2. Those may be true or false - these statements are alleged in the expositor, but there is no evidence to corroborate or refute them.

3. Those that are false - there is persuasive evidence that refutes the statements.

This may be a topic for another thread.

Dbalgent007 - Yeah, I agree with you. That's what I was sort of getting at but you said it better than I did.