The Great Church History Cover-up

[Calm]

More than one is enough to imply they all were consumated.

It is logically false to conclude that because more than one is something, that all are something (for example, I cannot logically conclude that since the two people I saw come through a door were female, that only females use that door). Something more is needed.

You may certainly infer all from "more than one", but it does not logically follow or imply ii.

We know that there were women sealed or temple married to him after his death. According to your logic, their relationship can be assumed to have been consummated as well.

[lingo]

Pahoran,

How dare you mention those things. Now those kids will know for sure that the church is false. Argh!!

Lol. I think it funny that people say they leave the church over historical issues as if any of those make the church true or false. IOW the church's truth claims don't reside in weathet JS had a gun in carthage or weather or not he destoryed the priniting press. The church is still true even if those things happened.

So, is the same logic applied to the first vision story (3 or more possible versions of which the church's is different from Joseph's own handwritten version)? Even if he got his story mixed up while telling different people because he couldn't remember what he had said, the church is still true because one of those versions has to be the right one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, is the same logic applied to the first vision story (3 or more possible versions of which the church's is different from Joseph's own handwritten version)? Even if he got his story mixed up while telling different people because he couldn't remember what he had said, the church is still true because one of those versions has to be the right one.

Nice red herring. That isn't what I said now is it?

Not every thing that is true is useful. I don't know what else to say.

If I knew JS had 3 wives or 47 how does that effect the truth claims of the church?

If JS had a gun in carthage vs not having a gun does that effect the truth claims of the church?

For the record the differnet versions of the 1st vision do not contradict each other.

[Wiki Wonka]

So, is the same logic applied to the first vision story (3 or more possible versions of which the church's is different from Joseph's own handwritten version)? Even if he got his story mixed up while telling different people because he couldn't remember what he had said, the church is still true because one of those versions has to be the right one.

Are you perhaps referring to the four different First Vision accounts discussed in the January 1985 Ensign here? Joseph Smith

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you perhaps referring to the four different First Vision accounts discussed in the January 1985 Ensign here? Joseph Smith

[Wiki Wonka]

Why would the church cover up its history? Geeze!!!

I never knew there were various accounts of the 1st vision. Thats it I am out!!!

Well...its between the "covers" of the Ensign.

Better watch out for your kids as well, because the seer stone is discussed in the Friend:

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates 'a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.' Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone."

[Alf O'Mega]

Incidentally, Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was most probably never consummated. She continued to live with her family after the sealing. Later on in Utah, a number of similar cases occurred, and in each case, the sealing was a kind of betrothal rather than a fully-fledged marriage.

In each case? Really? Why do you continue to make unsupportable generalizations, Pahoran? They are so easy to puncture, since all it takes is a single counter-example. Certainly in some cases there is evidence of early forbearance by the husbands, but by no means was this a universally adopted standard. From FamilySearch, here are three plural brides married at fourteen or younger, each conceiving a child within a year or two of her marriage:

• Harriet Sergeant (born 23 October 1832) married Charles Rich (born 21 August 1809) on 28 Mar 1847, when she was less than fourteen-and-a-half years old. She was his sixth wife. She gave birth to Franklin David Rich on 5 April 1849, when she was about sixteen-and-a-half years old.
  
• Mary Ann Brown (born 2 October 1842) married Warren S. Snow (born 15 June 1818) on 20 April 1857, when she was just over fourteen-and-a-half years old. She was his fourth or fifth wife (Snow having married twice that day). She gave birth to Eunice Rozina Buchanan Snow on 11 March 1858, when she was less than fifteen-and-a-half years old.
  
• Laura Christina Petra Lund (born 27 February 1843) married John Van Cott (born 7 September 1814) on 12 February 1857, fifteen days short of her fourteenth birthday. She was his third or fourth wife (Van Cott having married twice that day). She gave birth to Agnes Van Cott on 9 May 1858, when she was fifteen years old.

[Calm]

In each case? Really? Why do you continue to make unsupportable generalizations, Pahoran? They are so easy to puncture, since all it takes is a single counter-example. Certainly in some cases there is evidence of early forbearance by the husbands, but by no means was this a universally adopted standard.

Pahoran can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his comment as regards not to the age, but to the idea the daughter stayed in her family's home and the marriage was not consummated until she joined her husband.

[gitxsanartist]

Even Dan Peterson agrees that the church does not teach enough of the "real" history of the church. I for one tend to agree. Yes, the church does whitewash its history, shall I list a few?

1.) Changes to the Book of Mormon (for racial reasons) such as the wording "white" to "pure". And the most recent change from "principal" to "among" due to recent DNA research.

2.) No mention that the papyrus was discovered in 1967 and what is written on it in no way matches the text of the Book of Abraham. What of the three egyptian drawings in the Pearl of Great Price, perhaps we should put at correct interpretation next to JS's interpretation.

3.) Polygamy yes, but when does the church ever openly discuss the polyandrous nature of JS's many unions, I think that is even more exciting.

4.) The multiple versions of the first vision accounts and their details should be more openly discussed and analyzed.

5.) The various translations methods used in translating the BofM.

6.) All the changes to the temple endowment and why.

7.) Money digging history of JS including court appearances.

8.) Mountain Meadows Massacre and the principle of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young.

9.) Expositor fiasco.

10.) Kirtland banking fiasco.

11.) Kinderhook plates incident.

I'm not saying that this information is not out there and publicly available but you won't find it taught in any church meeting or church sponsored event and it will not appear in any church approved publication.

[mysteryman]

Even Dan Peterson agrees that the church does not teach enough of the "real" history of the church. I for one tend to agree. Yes, the church does whitewash its history, shall I list a few?

1.) Changes to the Book of Mormon (for racial reasons) such as the wording "white" to "pure". And the most recent change from "principal" to "among" due to recent DNA research.

2.) No mention that the papyrus was discovered in 1967 and what is written on it in no way matches the text of the Book of Abraham. What of the three egyptian drawings in the Pearl of Great Price, perhaps we should put at correct interpretation next to JS's interpretation.

3.) Polygamy yes, but when does the church ever openly discuss the polyandrous nature of JS's many unions, I think that is even more exciting.

4.) The multiple versions of the first vision accounts and their details should be more openly discussed and analyzed.

5.) The various translations methods used in translating the BofM.

6.) All the changes to the temple endowment and why.

7.) Money digging history of JS including court appearances.

8.) Mountain Meadows Massacre and the principle of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young.

9.) Expositor fiasco.

10.) Kirtland banking fiasco.

11.) Kinderhook plates incident.

I'm not saying that this information is not out there and publicly available but you won't find it taught in any church meeting or church sponsored event and it will not appear in any church approved publication.

Be careful about making blanket statements. The First Vision accounts was published in the Improvement Era, the official church magazine before it became the Ensign (James B. Allen, "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith

[thews]

It is logically false to conclude that because more than one is something, that all are something (for example, I cannot logically conclude that since the two people I saw come through a door were female, that only females use that door). Something more is needed.

That's your logic and IMO your analogy is absurd. From my conversations with some Mormons, even the most evidenced arguments are considered false by choosing to find a feasable way out of it, as they refuse to believe any of theplural wives of Joseph Smith were consumated. In this case, if Jeseph Smith consumated some of his plural marriages, then it would seem logical that he consumated most or all of them. I would agree that he probably didn't consumate the marriages to older widows, but that's because these were used (IMO) as a smokescreen to paint the picture that the marriages were just sealings... which they weren't, according to FARMS on at least 9 of his plural wives, yet there are still many LDS members that refuse to believe any of them were consumated, and that the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney is somehow not deceiving to Emma, which it clearly is when viewed with a critical thought process.

You may certainly infer all from "more than one", but it does not logically follow or imply ii.

Yes it is. It's much more logical to assume "more than one" if "more than one" can be proven. Once again, FARMS admits to 8 or 9 confirmend consumated marriages by Joseph Smith to his plural wives... are you implying that illogical that more than 9 is probable?

We know that there were women sealed or temple married to him after his death. According to your logic, their relationship can be assumed to have been consummated as well.

No, and this concept doesn't make sense to me at all, but it's an attempt to justify polygamy for the members that remained (mainly Brigham Young who had more wives than Joseph Smith). Why does Joseph Smith get a free pass under the "sealings" guise while everyone is OK with Brigham Young have as many wives as he wished? What's the difference? Why the big push to deny Joseph Smith did in fact consumate the marriages to his plural wives? I hardly see how your argument follows logic.

[Redefined]

That's your logic and IMO your analogy is absurd. From my conversations with some Mormons, even the most evidenced arguments are considered false by choosing to find a feasable way out of it, as they refuse to believe any of theplural wives of Joseph Smith were consumated. In this case, if Jeseph Smith consumated some of his plural marriages, then it would seem logical that he consumated most or all of them. I would agree that he probably didn't consumate the marriages to older widows, but that's because these were used (IMO) as a smokescreen to paint the picture that the marriages were just sealings... which they weren't, according to FARMS on at least 9 of his plural wives, yet there are still many LDS members that refuse to believe any of them were consumated, and that the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney is somehow not deceiving to Emma, which it clearly is when viewed with a critical thought process.

Yes it is. It's much more logical to assume "more than one" if "more than one" can be proven. Once again, FARMS admits to 8 or 9 confirmend consumated marriages by Joseph Smith to his plural wives... are you implying that illogical that more than 9 is probable?

No, and this concept doesn't make sense to me at all, but it's an attempt to justify polygamy for the members that remained (mainly Brigham Young who had more wives than Joseph Smith). Why does Joseph Smith get a free pass under the "sealings" guise while everyone is OK with Brigham Young have as many wives as he wished? What's the difference? Why the big push to deny Joseph Smith did in fact consumate the marriages to his plural wives? I hardly see how your argument follows logic.

Because if they admit that Joseph Smith had sex with the women, this would show that he may have had alternate "human" reasons for making up this particular revelation. So the obvious cogdis is to say maintain that this was never the case, and that Joseph Smith had all the noble intentions because it wasn't a commandment from a human, it was a commandment from God.

It also reminds me of a discussion I had with my Dad, who boasted that a particular news came out revealing that the DNA evidence didn't link a person to Joseph Smith. . . thus "prooving" that Joseph Smith wasn't a sexual scoundral, and therefore exonerating Joseph Smith to Saint status. . . how dare I disagree!

[Redefined]

[deleted duplicate post]

[Alf O'Mega]

Pahoran can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his comment as regards not to the age, but to the idea the daughter stayed in her family's home and the marriage was not consummated until she joined her husband.

So his claim was either wrong or it was meaningless. "In every case like this, the circumstances were just like this."

When most people hear about the Helen Mar Kimball marriage for the first time, they automatically recoil (as she herself did) at the thought of a young teenager becoming a wife (with all that entails) to a man more than twice her age. So the standard response is to point out that the marriage was probably not consummated. I agree with this analysis in Helen's case.

However, as an objection to the way plural marriage was implemented, Helen's case does not ameliorate the situation. There were consummated plural unions between young teenagers and men twice (or even thrice) their age. Helen's outcome was not, as Pahoran claimed, a template ("in each case") for every other young teenage bride enlisted in the Principle.

Understand that I am not posing the objection. I'm just pointing out that Pahoran's answer to the objection fails.

Celebrating Pahoran's failures is one of the most rewarding things I get to do on this board, but I only do it because I know he understands the affection behind the challenge. Somewhere, deep down (and I mean deep down), Pahoran is a big, harmless teddy bear. Our exchanges here are a form of antipodal hug.

[David T]

Even Dan Peterson agrees that the church does not teach enough of the "real" history of the church. I for one tend to agree. Yes, the church does whitewash its history, shall I list a few?

1.) Changes to the Book of Mormon (for racial reasons) such as the wording "white" to "pure". And the most recent change from "principal" to "among" due to recent DNA research.

The 'white' to 'pure' is a no go. It was initially White in the original manuscripts and 1830 edition, Joseph changed it to pure in the 1837 edition (hardly for racial reasons). Later editions used the un-edited version as their source, and thus many of the changes by Joseph were not incorporated until the 1981 edition, where it states clearly, "About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith. "

2.) No mention that the papyrus was discovered in 1967 and what is written on it in no way matches the text of the Book of Abraham. What of the three egyptian drawings in the Pearl of Great Price, perhaps we should put at correct interpretation next to JS's interpretation.

There is nothing to report, because there is no current consensus as to the significance and use of the Papyrai in Joseph's work. I wouldn't be surprised if a further edition of the Joseph Smith Papers, however, did discuss this in detail. There also have been several articles in the Ensign. Here, here, etc.

3.) Polygamy yes, but when does the church ever openly discuss the polyandrous nature of JS's many unions, I think that is even more exciting.

Don't really understand what purpose this would serve.

4.) The multiple versions of the first vision accounts and their details should be more openly discussed and analyzed.

There was just a 2-part broadcast on Mormon Radio (the Church's official station) which read and discussed in detail each first vision account. See here, Episodes 14 and 15.

5.) The various translations methods used in translating the BofM.

These have been discussed and printed in Church magazines, such as this by Elder Nelson..

6.) All the changes to the temple endowment and why.

This is just silly. The Temple Endowment in general is not discussed publicly.

7.) Money digging history of JS including court appearances.

Only if you exclude the canonized Joseph Smith - History, and the entire forthcoming series devoted toLegal Documents in the Joseph Smith Papers.

8.) Mountain Meadows Massacre and the principle of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young.

See 'Massacre at Mountain Meadows', produced and written with full cooperation by the Church, and by official Church Historians, andfeatured in the Ensign., with accompanied ad for the full book.

9.) Expositor fiasco.

See History of the Church,these Ensign listings.

10.) Kirtland banking fiasco.

See Ensign articles hereand here, etc.

11.) Kinderhook plates incident.

See History of the Church, and an article in the Ensign

I'm not saying that this information is not out there and publicly available but ... it will not appear in any church approved publication.

Demonstrably false.

[Wiki Wonka]

I'm not saying that this information is not out there and publicly available but you won't find it taught in any church meeting or church sponsored event and it will not appear in any church approved publication.

Incorrect. Scratch that, reverse it. Many of the items you mention are "hidden" in Church publications:

Hiding the facts in Church history

[Calm]

Scratch that, reverse it.

Sweet.

[Pahoran]

Thews,

you have posted twice in this thread since I posted my CFR, and yet you have so far failed to answer it.

For your convenience, here it is again.

You need not respond with another pile of irrelevant factoids and red herrings, Thews. There are only three questions before you:

1. Please provide your analysis of the Whitney letter. Explain your reasoning, and explicitly draw your conclusions;
   
2. Explain how you reach the extraordinary conclusion that "Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off;" and
   
3. Tell us who Joseph's "many offspring" were.
   

We await your answer with bated breath.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

if Jeseph Smith consumated some of his plural marriages, then it would seem logical that he consumated most or all of them.

It's neither logical nor reasonable when you consider, as I am sure you will, given your obvious search for truth rather than mere support for a pre-existing position, that the terminology was not well understood as differentiating between "sealings" and "marriages" in the 1830s & 40s; that the idea of sealings includes, today, a far broader range of relationships than to either spouses or offspring, as was likely the case in Joseph's day; that we LDSs understand that individual sealings are part of a much vaster network than just husband-to-wife-to children.

The evidence for this is the idea of "adoption" that was widely practiced in Joseph's time, and that many of Joseph's "wives" were sealed to him out of concern for the connection to a prophet that could exist when the sealing was in affect.

I would agree that he probably didn't consumate the marriages to older widows, but that's because these were used (IMO) as a smokescreen to paint the picture that the marriages were just sealings... which they weren't, according to FARMS on at least 9 of his plural wives, yet there are still many LDS members that refuse to believe any of them were consumated, and that the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney is somehow not deceiving to Emma, which it clearly is when viewed with a critical thought process.

I have found very few Saints who deny that Joseph was completely married to several of his wives. But that does not make the case that you allege here.

We also recognize that Emma was, at best, a reluctant participant in plural marriage, and that she stood in the way of Joseph's following the commandment of the Lord on this matter. Yet, she did propose some of the women he married to him, so she was not as iron-willed as you seem to paint her to be. Even her final words on the matter, dictated to her son, contain startling hints of her belief in the principle, as well as her undying conviction that her husband, Joseph Smith, Jr., was a prophet of God.

It's much more logical to assume "more than one" if "more than one" can be proven. Once again, FARMS admits to 8 or 9 confirmend consumated marriages by Joseph Smith to his plural wives... are you implying that illogical that more than 9 is probable?

Yes.

You can try this variation of the slippery slope fallacy until the cows come home, but it is nothing more than a fallacy in whatever dress.

this concept doesn't make sense to me at all, but it's an attempt to justify polygamy for the members that remained (mainly Brigham Young who had more wives than Joseph Smith). Why does Joseph Smith get a free pass under the "sealings" guise while everyone is OK with Brigham Young have as many wives as he wished? What's the difference?

Because Brigham didn't have to practice plural marriage clandestinely.

Yet, he, too, was sealed to many women who were not sexually his wives, just as Joseph did. There is no double standard. The only difference is of quantity, not quality.

For instance, Eliza Roxey Snow, one of Joseph's widows, (one whom I believe had been pregnant by Joseph until an accident made her an obstetrical invalid) was later Brigham Young's wife. He took her (as well as a couple of others of Joseph's widows) for the purpose of giving her support throughout her life. I cannot find anything that shows they were married for any other reason.

Why the big push to deny Joseph Smith did in fact consumate the marriages to his plural wives? I hardly see how your argument follows logic.

Because Joseph's having multiple, "true" wives makes some people nervous, mostly people outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But it is also important to understand the breadth and scope of sealings, a breadth that far exceeds marriage and a scope that outdistances polygyny. Sealings are a manifestation of a core concept in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There may be some who go overboard in limiting Joseph's functional marriages, but it seems there is a hugely overcompensating crowd who want to use his plural marriages to paint him an unprincipled libertine. This he never was.

Lorenzo Snow, on learning of Joseph's intent to marry his sister (Eliza, mentioned above) threatened to kill him if he, Joseph, humiliated her. Joseph did not die by Lorenzo's hand. Eliza herself was affronted by the proposal. But she married him anyway. Why? Because both were convinced the command was of God, and this alone explains their actions.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Bump for Thews.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow this thread died.

Thews you have a CFR waiting for you here.

[Teancum]

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

Of course there is an abundance of resources available to anyone interested and who may take the time and possibly spend some money on acquiring books. And then there is the internet which is rife with minefields for the average member. The real question is regarding what the Church includes in the manuals and resources it provides and whether those materials provide appropriate disclosures on matters that may make a difference to a person trying to decide what level of commitment they want to give to the Church. And the issue really may be different for someone brought up LDS vs. someone taking the missionary discussions. Certainly the missionary discussions give very little info about difficult things. It is really up to the investigator to do their own due diligence. Since the missionaries are not equipped to help a potential new member the investigator will often turn to the internet and that can lead them away from the Church. Why not be more proactive when working with potential converts? I think we would gain more who remain solid and committed.

Now back to life time members. Well, most of us brought up LDS go to Primary, SS, YM/YW, seminary, institute. There are some young people that are ambitious enough to delve into FARMs stuff on their own, or BYU studies, or pick up Mormon Enigma or a Quin tome. But most won't. So when in their formative years the born in the covenant person mostly gets their stuff from the LDS sources and those do not delve into things that may not be faith promoting. Most of us have gained what we believe is a testimony before or during a mission. We come back with zeal to defend, live, teach, preach and bring up our children in what we think is the truth.

It was not till I was an adult with children that were well into their growing years that I had time or money to invest is hobby apologetic which in turn led me to seek out some of the resources that do disclose the issues that can cause so many to stumble. So I am sorry Pahoran, I do not believe it is so simple as "Well you lazy clot, you could have found this out on your own. I am not one that says the Church intentionally hides things. But they do intentionally avoid full disclosure and in fact they tend to disclose mostly if not totally on that which will promote faith. And I understand the dilemma they are in. Someone said that those who think the Church should do full disclosure is full of bunk. Perhaps. But it would seem to me that the Church needs to come up with what Dr. Peterson has called the C type history. One that gives disclosure that is balanced and even pro LDS. I think RSR was a good start though the Chruch did not publish that. The JS papers probably are very good in this area as well.

[Teancum]

And since when does the responsibility for ignorance fall upon the Church?

The onus of responsibility for this state of affairs still falls upon the ignorant, not upon the Church.

One wonders if this you were discussing a financial investment that you made if you would say the same. When investing in a security is it not the responsibility of the seller of the financial instrument to give the buyer all the facts and details they need in order to decide if the investment suits their financial goals and portfolios. So if you invest $50k in a financial instrument and lost it and you later discover you did not have full disclosure about facts that may have persuaded you not to invest would you say that your ignorance was your fault or the promoter of the securities fault?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One wonders if this you were discussing a financial investment that you made if you would say the same. When investing in a security is it not the responsibility of the seller of the financial instrument to give the buyer all the facts and details they need in order to decide if the investment suits their financial goals and portfolios. So if you invest $50k in a financial instrument and lost it and you later discover you did not have full disclosure about facts that may have persuaded you not to invest would you say that your ignorance was your fault or the promoter of the securities fault?

Since when are we talking about a financial investment? You couldn't make a very good argument that joining the church is even remotly the same as a financial investment, even keeping in mind tithing as I am writing this.

THis is not an apples to apples comparison.

[thews]

Bump for Thews.

I was banned for a few days (not sure why?). Anyway, I'll respond in full detail when I have time (I have another paper to write on Descartes). But, when I respond, please reposnd to the post... it's all I ask.