Chapel Mormons

[Markk]

Let me just say I am incredulous that, given the ample demonstrations to the contrary, somebody is still trying to sustain the fiction that the Church hides the fact of Joseph having been given a firearm for protection while in Carthage Jail.

Hi scott,

I think it would fair you well to read my 1st post on this, read it in context.

mark

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi scott,

I think it would fair you well to read my 1st post on this, read it in context.

mark

I think I've at least glanced at all your posts on this thread, but you've written quite a number of them. Do you have a link to that specific one?

OK, I've re-read what I ascertain is your first post on this thread, and it doesn't change my view in the least. I think it was answered very well by Daniel Peterson and others. It is simply ludicrous to complain that it's the Church's fault you were in the dark about Joseph having a pistol at Carthage when that fact has been noted repeatedly in numerous sources from 1844 on.

Moreover, I don't see that it should damage anyone's image of the Prophet to know that a caring friend, aware of the gathering mob and their murderous intentions, provided Joseph with a firearm, however meager and inadequate, for protection. To know that Joseph attempted to fend off the attackers, and in that endeavor, probably saved the lives of his companions John Taylor and Willard Richards, only enhances my impression of his heroism.

Whatever the causes or motivation for your apostasy, you do not have the Church to blame, from what I can see.

[Pahoran]

The least he could do is pick an example that can more plausibly be dubbed as "hidding it's history".

Hidding?

The problem is, Mola, I don't think there is a more plausible example.

The gun at teh jail is a horrible example of this.

Actually I think it's a fairly representative argument, and no worse than any other.

That doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you, though.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hidding?

The problem is, Mola, I don't think there is a more plausible example.

Actually I think it's a fairly representative argument, and no worse than any other.

That doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you, though.

Regards,

Pahoran

To this I agree, however if one were to qualify it with say, that the church hasn't brought up point X in over 50 years I am sure a critic could find some inane point.

I think though that this has been quite a thread to behold.

The best part about these threads is that I learn how frequently the church publishes material that is supposed to have been "hidden".

[Markk]

I think I've at least glanced at all your posts on this thread, but you've written quite a number of them. Do you have a link to that specific one?

OK, I've re-read what I ascertain is your first post on this thread, and it doesn't change my view in the least. I think it was answered very well by Daniel Peterson and others. It is simply ludicrous to complain that it's the Church's fault you were in the dark about Joseph having a pistol at Carthage when that fact has been noted repeatedly in numerous sources from 1844 on.

Moreover, I don't see that it should damage anyone's image of the Prophet to know that a caring friend, aware of the gathering mob and their murderous intentions, provided Joseph with a firearm, however meager and inadequate, for protection. To know that Joseph attempted to fend off the attackers, and in that endeavor, probably saved the lives of his companions John Taylor and Willard Richards, only enhances my impression of his heroism.

Whatever the causes or motivation for your apostasy, you do not have the Church to blame, from what I can see.

Hey Scott,

Great to hear from you.

Just to be clear, I wrote that finding this out was the START of my exodus from the church and that in it's self, if that were the only thing, I would still believe that the church was true and JS a true prophet of God.

Bottom line is that there are many members who do not and did not know about this, and many struggle and have struggled with this, and that is a problem for the church whether they want to deal with it or not. When LDS pundits and the critics of those who were/are, affected by this put the blame on the individual, it only adds to the church's problem and negative feelings people feel against the church when they do leave. If you choose to believe the church has always been forth right with their history that's your choice, but the evidence is clear that there are certain things they are not proud of, or that does not fit in the unrealistic image it has created of it's self. It's hard to be perfect, and even harder to appear perfect when your not.

Moreover, I don't see that it should damage anyone's image of the Prophet to know that a caring friend, aware of the gathering mob and their murderous intentions, provided Joseph with a firearm, however meager and inadequate, for protection.

I guess other than it was against the law. Do I blame JS for this...? I don't think so, I most likely would have took the gun also. But the way you just painted that is one of my points here, " this poor misunderstood perfect man". JS was a tough "street smart scrapper", a religious entrepreneur in many peers eyes, his history shows he always had an angel, painting him as a saint does not fit with his history.

I don't think that it damages his image too much as a man, but I certainly believe it does as a prophet who was supposedly putting his life in Gods hands. JS messed up by burning the press, he was obviously a tired and scared man with really no where else to go, he had always seemed to get out of his mess's before and this time it just caught up with him.

In your opinion what "responsibility" does the church have in teaching the saints?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Deborah]

JS messed up by burning the press, he was obviously a tired and scared man with really no where else to go, he had always seemed to get out of his mess's before and this time it just caught up with him.

It was the city council, not Joseph, who ordered the destruction of the press. This wasn't the real reason he was arrested and killed anyway. Why on earth would they kill him because of the press? It was an excuse. His time had come as he knew it would 5 years previously. His work was done. He had laid the responsibility on the Twelve and imparted all that he had to the men and women he trusted to carry on the work. It's ridiculous to say "it caught up to him." Had he not completed his work the Lord would not have allowed him to be killed.

[Markk]

To this I agree, however if one were to qualify it with say, that the church hasn't brought up point X in over 50 years I am sure a critic could find some inane point.

I think though that this has been quite a thread to behold.

The best part about these threads is that I learn how frequently the church publishes material that is supposed to have been "hidden".

Hi Mola,

Not really sure on this one, but of the published accounts that DP linked, how many were "published by the church" as you claimed? My count is that of the 50 or so references only about 12 or so were published by the church, and only two or three were actually in a teaching manual, so from 1844 to 2008 (164 years)...?

The church arguably published 12 or so "products" that taught this, of those 12 or so half or so were post Internet. I included in the church published BYU studies and Deseret books, there were 3 or 4 older ones I'm not sure about, couldn't find a publisher. At any rate this story being in only 2 or 3 teaching manuals in 164 years is not real impressive, of course these are only the ones Dan linked, maybe there is more, maybe not?

Take care

Mark

[Markk]

It was the city council, not Joseph, who ordered the destruction of the press. This wasn't the real reason he was arrested and killed anyway. Why on earth would they kill him because of the press? It was an excuse. His time had come as he knew it would 5 years previously. His work was done. He had laid the responsibility on the Twelve and imparted all that he had to the men and women he trusted to carry on the work. It's ridiculous to say "it caught up to him." Had he not completed his work the Lord would not have allowed him to be killed.

Hi Deborah,

Why didn't Joesph stop them if what you say is true?

Mark

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola,

Not really sure on this one, but of the published accounts that DP linked, how many were "published by the church" as you claimed? My count is that of the 50 or so references only about 12 or so were published by the church, and only two or three were actually in a teaching manual, so from 1844 to 2008 (164 years)...?

The church arguably published 12 or so "products" that taught this, of those 12 or so half or so were post Internet. I included in the church published BYU studies and Deseret books, there were 3 or 4 older ones I'm not sure about, couldn't find a publisher. At any rate this story being in only 2 or 3 teaching manuals in 164 years is not real impressive, of course these are only the ones Dan linked, maybe there is more, maybe not?

Take care

Mark

You almost convinced me Markk that the church really does hide its history. Let this thread stand as a testimony of how crappy the church does at it.

[Markk]

You almost convinced me Markk.

Hey Mola,

How many of the links were publised by the church?

Mark

[Daniel Peterson]

Bottom line is that there are many members who do not and did not know about this, and many struggle and have struggled with this, and that is a problem for the church whether they want to deal with it or not.

How would you suggest that the Church "deal with" this?

Discussions of the story of the pistol in books by general authorities and in books by prominent scholars and in articles in the Church's magazines, coupled with depictions in Church movies and in traveling historical exhibits, along with displays in the Church's history museum, accompanied by treatments in official manuals of the Church's history, don't appear to have done the job for every single individual.

Heck, incredible though it may sound, they haven't even prevented some people from accusing the Church of hiding the story of the pistol. (I'm not making this up!)

When LDS pundits and the critics of those who were/are, affected by this put the blame on the individual, it only adds to the church's problem and negative feelings people feel against the church when they do leave.

So you would suggest, I take it, that, when such individuals blame the Church for their ignorance, people who know better should bite their tongues and allow that preposterous accusation to go uncorrected?

" this poor misunderstood perfect man".

Who here has ever called Joseph Smith perfect?

I think your phrase needs to be corrected: "this perfectly pathetic straw man" would be a more appropriate formulation.

painting him as a saint does not fit with his history.

Painting him as a very good man fits well with his history.

I won't stand by and permit you to malign him without registering a protest and a contradiction.

In your opinion what "responsibility" does the church have in teaching the saints?

It has the responsibility of telling the truth.

So do you.

I think the Church has discharged its obligation quite well.

[WalkerW]

Bottom line is that there are many members who do not and did not know about this

Good thing that there is plenty of material for these members to read to discover it.

and many struggle and have struggled with this

That is too bad, since it is an odd thing to struggle with.

and that is a problem for the church whether they want to deal with it or not

Really? It sounds like it is only a problem for people who are against the idea of self-defense. But considering the fact that it was mentioned in my Gospel Doctrine lesson a little bit ago, I guess the Church is "dealing with it." Ready to come back now?

At any rate this story being in only 2 or 3 teaching manuals in 164 years is not real impressive

Well, showing up in any official teaching manuals doesn't exactly gel with the attitude of hiding history...

but the evidence is clear that there are certain things they are not proud of

Joseph Smith having a gun would definitely not be one of these "certain things." I'm sure the Church leaders would be just as baffled as the rest of us are that this is such a testimony breaker. Seems like Joseph Smith wanted to protect his family and friends just like Peter wanted to protect his...

I don't think that it damages his image too much as a man, but I certainly believe it does as a prophet who was supposedly putting his life in Gods hands

1. He wasn't alone. He had his brother and two friends with him. He very well may have acted differently if this was not the case.

2. It seems the one holding Joseph to the standard of perfection is you, along with those called as prophets. I'll expect you to toss out the Bible then and remove your John reference when you sign your name.

[Markk]

How would you suggest that the Church "deal with" this?

Discussions of the story of the pistol in books by general authorities and in books by prominent scholars and in articles in the Church's magazines, coupled with depictions in Church movies and in traveling historical exhibits, along with displays in the Church's history museum, accompanied by treatments in official manuals of the Church's history, don't appear to have done the job for every single individual.

Heck, incredible though it may sound, they haven't even prevented some people from accusing the Church of hiding the story of the pistol. (I'm not making this up!)

So you would suggest, I take it, that, when such individuals blame the Church for their ignorance, people who know better should bite their tongues and allow that preposterous accusation to go uncorrected?

Who here has ever called Joseph Smith perfect?

I think your phrase needs to be corrected: "this perfectly pathetic straw man" would be a more appropriate formulation.

Painting him as a very good man fits well with his history.

I won't stand by and permit you to malign him without registering a protest and a contradiction.

It has the responsibility of telling the truth.

So do you.

I think the Church has discharged its obligation quite well.

Hi Dan,

How would you suggest that the Church "deal with" this?

I believe a good start would be to actually address this issues that are addressed on sites like this.

I'm not sure who is saying the church is "hiding" this, my contention has always been they didn't teach it, not are they comfortable in doing so.

So you would suggest, I take it, that, when such individuals blame the Church for their ignorance, people who know better should bite their tongues and allow that preposterous accusation to go uncorrected?

I suggest that member try to understand the very real fact that up until the Internet age the very most of saints did not know about JS and the gun, and that it is to disturbing to many of these saints.

Who here has ever called Joseph Smith perfect?

I think your phrase needs to be corrected: "this perfectly pathetic straw man" would be a more appropriate formulation.

Read what I wrote in context Dan, talk about straw man, try looking at your 50 links...geez Only 2 or 3 times in a teaching manual in 164 years

I won't stand by and permit you to malign him without registering a protest and a contradiction.

Protest taken, I apologize if I crossed the line, I didn't intend it that way, please try to understand the context of my remarks. But I also believe Joesph wasn't as good a man as most saints would believe. He was a hard man who lived in hard times.

It has the responsibility of telling the truth.

So do you.

I think the Church has discharged its obligation quite well.

I disagree, while I believe that the leadership are good men, the truth has assimilated into half truths and perceived truths, while being subjective to each respective era or generation. In other words the truth has and will change to insure a cohesiveness within the church to insure it's survival.

take care

Mark

[WalkerW]

I believe a good start would be to actually address this issues that are addressed on sites like this.

Was taught in my Gospel Doctrine class.

I suggest that member try to understand the very real fact that up until the Internet age the very most of saints did not know about JS and the gun, and that it is to disturbing to many of these saints.

I learned it from Truman G. Madsen, not from the Internet. Without some kind of statistics, you are doing no more than making this up.

He was a hard man who lived in hard times.

I'm sure this could be said of the original Twelve.

[volgadon]

In your opinion what "responsibility" does the church have in teaching the saints?

Forcing them to read chapters XXX through XXXV of the Documentary History of the Church?

Seriously, there is no excuse for any member or former member in the English speaking world to be ignorant of this. As I said, if my parents in Israel in the early 80s could bring a set over, then what is your excuse, laziness?

[mysteryman]

I suggest that member try to understand the very real fact that up until the Internet age the very most of saints did not know about JS and the gun, and that it is to disturbing to many of these saints.

Why are you so fascinated by this invented claim that the church hid this until the internet age? This has been PROVEN false to you several times by Dan Peterson and myself. Let us recap yet again.

FACT 1. Apostle George Q. Cannon mentions this in his biography of Joseph Smith written back in the 1880s. This book was later published by church owned Deseret Book. Why did this apostle and church publisher allow this suppressed story to be told?

FACT 2. Prior to the internet age the church allowed this story to be printed in the History of the Church. Why if they were trying to hide it?

FACT 3. Prior to the Internet age B.H. Roberts published this story in the Comprehensive History of the Church. This has become a church classic. Why did they allow this if they were trying to cover it up?

FACT 4. Prior to the internet age in 1907, Preston D. Richards, grandson of Willard Richards, published this story in the Churches official magazine the Improvement Era.

FACT 5. In 1922, Joseph Fielding Smith published this story in Essentials in Church History. This book was the standard in the Church for LDS History. Later published by Deseret Book. Dan has demonstrated it went through multiple printings. Why did the Church allow the story of the gun to be put in there if it was to be hidden?

FACT 6. In the 1970s the church approved a new published history, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, published by Deseret Book. It also included this story. Why was this approved if the Church wants this suppressed? This was prior to the internet age by the way.

FACT 7. Another approved history of the church coming from and approved by the church historical department in the 1970s was The Mormon Experience, it also references the gun. Why was this allowed by Leonard Arrington one of the books co-authors and president of the churches historical department at the time if it was to be hidden?

FACT 8. This story of the gun exists in videos about the martyrdom created by the Church prior to the internet. Why did the church allow this if it was to be suppressed?

FACT 9. In 1989 the church published Church History in the Fullness of Times as the official church history manual for Institute, it references that Joseph had a gun along with pictures of it. Although the internet was around, it was not in every household and was unknown to many citizens in 1989. Why was this suppressed story allowed in this manual?

FACT 10. The gun is on display in the Church History Museum. Why if it is a hidden story?

Its time to face the FACTS. You have been PROVEN wrong several times now. Its ok to be wrong. I do not know why you had not heard this considering the many places it had been published. I know I was never ignorant of it, don't know why you were. I am also unsure why this is such a big deal to you. You now know you are wrong in thinking it was suppressed, so why do you knowingly cling to this fantasy that the church has hidden this fact now that you know for certain this is not the case? Since Joseph was a Bible believer you know his idea of a prophet justifies the use of violence in defending himself. Why is this little issue such a big deal to you?

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe a good start would be to actually address this issues that are addressed on sites like this.

Which, as we've abundantly demonstrated, the Church has been doing pretty consistently in the case of Joseph Smith's pistol since 1844

I'm not sure who is saying the church is "hiding" this, my contention has always been they didn't teach it, not are they comfortable in doing so.

And you've been proven wrong on this particular issue.

I suggest that member try to understand the very real fact that up until the Internet age the very most of saints did not know about JS and the gun, and that it is to disturbing to many of these saints.

Do you have any data at all to substantiate these claims, or are you simply making them up out of thin air?

You didn't know about the gun. Many here, though, have known about it since we can remember. It has been discussed in numerous places since within a few months of the martyrdom. You cannot generalize from your personal ignorance to the membership of the Church as a whole. Many of them, for example, bought and read President Joseph Fielding Smith's Essentials in Church History in one of the twenty-five or thirty editions of it that were published before "the Internet age." President Smith taught about the pistol, and seems to have felt no discomfort in doing so.

Read what I wrote in context Dan, talk about straw man, try looking at your 50 links...geez Only 2 or 3 times in a teaching manual in 164 years

Markk. Try to focus. Concentrate. I'm going to repeat myself yet again: That list -- which is not mine, as I've pointed out before -- is not exhaustive. It's representative. It doesn't, for example, include Essentials in Church History. Not even a single edition of Essentials in Church History. Yet it does include Church manuals and art exhibits and museum displays and Church periodicals and biographies of general authorities written by general authorities and many such things, beginning in 1844 and continuing to the present day without any significant interruption.

For some reason, you didn't know about the pistol. It wasn't the Church's fault. Take some responsibility and stop trying to blame others.

.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

From 1844 to lets say 1990 ( the year I left the church), how many teaching manuals was the story printed in full context?

Mark

[Markk]

Why are you so fascinated by this invented claim that the church hid this until the internet age? This has been PROVEN false to you several times by Dan Peterson and myself. Let us recap yet again.

FACT 1. Apostle George Q. Cannon mentions this in his biography of Joseph Smith written back in the 1880s. This book was later published by church owned Deseret Book. Why did this apostle and church publisher allow this suppressed story to be told?

FACT 2. Prior to the internet age the church allowed this story to be printed in the History of the Church. Why if they were trying to hide it?

FACT 3. Prior to the Internet age B.H. Roberts published this story in the Comprehensive History of the Church. This has become a church classic. Why did they allow this if they were trying to cover it up?

FACT 4. Prior to the internet age in 1907, Preston D. Richards, grandson of Willard Richards, published this story in the Churches official magazine the Improvement Era.

FACT 5. In 1922, Joseph Fielding Smith published this story in Essentials in Church History. This book was the standard in the Church for LDS History. Later published by Deseret Book. Dan has demonstrated it went through multiple printings. Why did the Church allow the story of the gun to be put in there if it was to be hidden?

FACT 6. In the 1970s the church approved a new published history, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, published by Deseret Book. It also included this story. Why was this approved if the Church wants this suppressed? This was prior to the internet age by the way.

FACT 7. Another approved history of the church coming from and approved by the church historical department in the 1970s was The Mormon Experience, it also references the gun. Why was this allowed by Leonard Arrington one of the books co-authors and president of the churches historical department at the time if it was to be hidden?

FACT 8. This story of the gun exists in videos about the martyrdom created by the Church prior to the internet. Why did the church allow this if it was to be suppressed?

FACT 9. In 1989 the church published Church History in the Fullness of Times as the official church history manual for Institute, it references that Joseph had a gun along with pictures of it. Although the internet was around, it was not in every household and was unknown to many citizens in 1989. Why was this suppressed story allowed in this manual?

FACT 10. The gun is on display in the Church History Museum. Why if it is a hidden story?

Its time to face the FACTS. You have been PROVEN wrong several times now. Its ok to be wrong. I do not know why you had not heard this considering the many places it had been published. I know I was never ignorant of it, don't know why you were. I am also unsure why this is such a big deal to you. You now know you are wrong in thinking it was suppressed, so why do you knowingly cling to this fantasy that the church has hidden this fact now that you know for certain this is not the case? Since Joseph was a Bible believer you know his idea of a prophet justifies the use of violence in defending himself. Why is this little issue such a big deal to you?

Fact...try to understand the argument that we are discussing, it is whether or not the church has taught, not hidden, this part of history, I never once used the word hidden. How many time from 1844 to 1990 has the church printed this story in their teaching manuals?

Mark

[notHagoth7]

Since Joseph was a Bible believer you know his idea of a prophet justifies the use of violence in defending himself. Why is this little issue such a big deal to you?

And in the Book of Mormon:

1) Nephi helped his people make swords to defend themselves.

2) Captain Moroni, along with many others, continued that tradition.

3) As did Mormon and the other Moroni

Mark,

If Carthage happened centuries earlier, and the large mob had stormed the jail with swords, would you have been any less offended if Joseph and his three companions had defended themselves (and one another) with swords and shields? (Why? or Why not?)

What happened at Carthage is quite consistent with the Nephite account. So the LDS church wouldn't even have to teach the details of the Carthage event - since such things are already clearly addressed in scripture.

People have a right to defend those they love. Period.

Anyone who has read the Book of Mormon knows this is part of the fabric of Mormon belief (counterbalanced by Ammonites).

So there's no need to get indignant about Carthage.

You could just as easily let the Book of Mormon offend you.

(Although I don't know why you would want to.)

So please stop pretending that the LDS church is embarrassed about any of what happened there. It has no cause to be.

And as others have clearly demonstrated, the church has published the account time after time, generation after generation.

So seriously Mark. You're surrounded by the facts, and outnumbered. Defending one's life is one thing. But defending a failed argument simply makes you look indignant without cause. You've certainly got better, more productive things to do with your life than defend an empty argument.

[Daniel Peterson]

From 1844 to lets say 1990 ( the year I left the church), how many teaching manuals was the story printed in full context?

I don't know. I also don't know how many "teaching manuals" were even published by the Church between 1844 and 1990. No firm conclusions on either question can be drawn from the list to which I provided a link, because it isn't, and doesn't purport to be, a complete account even of all of the publications in which the tale of the pistol was told.

If, despite the continuous rat-a-tat-tat of official Church publications and public presentations and books by Church leaders that mention the story of the pistol between 1844 and 1990 (which, as we have demonstrated here, is only partially represented in the list to which I provided you a link), this question still bothers you, I suggest that you research an answer for it.

And don't forget to take into account the twenty-five or thirty editions of Essentials in Church History -- by Church historian, apostle, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and President of the Church Joseph Fielding Smith -- that were published between 1922 and 1990, but which don't appear in the list to which I provide you a link. It's very possible, even fairly likely, that members of the Church were reading this book during that time.

Also, don't fail to mention Ivan J. Barrett's popular Joseph Smith and the Restoration: A History of the LDS Church to 1846, which was used as a Church history textbook for religion classes at BYU as well as at what are now BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii and throughout the Institute system of the Church. I don't believe that it appears on the list to which I provided you a link. It was first published in 1967, and then appeared in a revised edition in 1973 (and perhaps in others after that), and it fails to tell the story of the pistol on every page except pages 611-614.

Incidentally, the list puts publication of Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith, which refuses to teach the story of the pistol on any page except for page 21, in 1994. That is misleading. A second edition was published in 1994. The book first appeared in 1975. Al Gore had not yet invented the Internet in 1975. You were still an uninformed member of the Church in 1975. Marvin Hill was a professor of history at BYU in 1975, and Dallin Oaks was president of the University. President Oaks would go on, roughly a decade later, to become a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which obviously was attempting to hide him away because of its embarrassment and discomfort at the story of the pistol.

.

[Bsix]

Talk about a minute detail...where, when, how, and with what frequency a relatively obscure historical fact has been taught in the Church. (Joseph Smith using a smuggled gun while he and his brother were being murdered.)

I suspect that the real thing that critics expect is that somehow the LDS Church teach to their anti agenda. If they consider something to weaken the Church's truth cliams...they expect us to teach those points.

In otherwords, they want the Church to do their work for them. If every Latter Day Saint has not been indocrinated with their agenda...we are being deceptive.

Six

[Daniel Peterson]

Talk about a minute detail...where, when, how, and with what frequency a relatively obscure historical fact has been taught in the Church. (Joseph Smith using a smuggled gun while he and his brother were being murdered.)

The phrase straining at a gnat comes to my mind.

I suspect that the real thing that critics expect is that somehow the LDS Church teach to their anti agenda. If they consider something to weaken the Church's truth cliams...they expect us to teach those points.

In otherwords, they want the Church to do their work for them. If every Latter Day Saint has not been indocrinated with their agenda...we are being deceptive.

I'm inclined to think you're right.

It's simply astonishing to me that Markk is still pursuing this line of argument. It's actually embarrassing, in fact.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not sure who is saying the church is "hiding" this, my contention has always been they didn't teach it, not are they comfortable in doing so.

Mark

But it is taught, there are many church publications that show this. Lets just say for arguments sake that the church suppresed this peice of info. I have to say "so". Some how you think this factoid is a strike against JS.

[volgadon]

The Documentary History of the Church. What more could you want?