Chapel Mormons

[Daniel Peterson]

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

And the Comprehensive History of the Church, too.

In my earliest days, before the blossoming of Church history that we've seen in recent decades, these, coupled with Essentials in Church History, were the sources for the history of Mormonism. They went through edition after edition. They were always available in Deseret Book. And they were official.

For somebody who apparently hadn't bothered to look at any of these three, which all tell the story of Joseph Smith and the pistol at Carthage Jail, to persist in claiming that, during this pre-Internet period, the Church was somehow trying to conceal the story from its members, is simply preposterous.

[volgadon]

And the Comprehensive History of the Church, too.

In my earliest days, before the blossoming of Church history that we've seen in recent decades, these, coupled with Essentials in Church History, were the sources for the history of Mormonism. They went through edition after edition. They were always available in Deseret Book. And they were official.

For somebody who apparently hadn't bothered to look at any of these three, which all tell the story of Joseph Smith and the pistol at Carthage Jail, to persist in claiming that, during this pre-Internet period, the Church was somehow trying to conceal the story from its members, is simply preposterous.

Yeah, those two sets were the basis of our church history library back home in Israel. Didn't have essentials though.

Isn't it clever to print a paperback edition, in order for more people to have it on their shelves, never read it and thus conceal the facts in plain sight?

As I said, there is no excuse for anyone in the English speaking world not to know about it.

[ttribe]

And the Comprehensive History of the Church, too.

In my earliest days, before the blossoming of Church history that we've seen in recent decades, these, coupled with Essentials in Church History, were the sources for the history of Mormonism. They went through edition after edition. They were always available in Deseret Book. And they were official.

For somebody who apparently hadn't bothered to look at any of these three, which all tell the story of Joseph Smith and the pistol at Carthage Jail, to persist in claiming that, during this pre-Internet period, the Church was somehow trying to conceal the story from its members, is simply preposterous.

Read Comprehensive History of the Church on my mission (91-93)...surprisingly (at least to some it seems) I managed to finished both the set of books and my mission with my testimony in tact.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read Comprehensive History of the Church on my mission (91-93)...surprisingly (at least to some it seems) I managed to finished both the set of books and my mission with my testimony in tact.

But did someone strap you to a chair, read it to you, force you to listen, and test you on the content to be sure you had comprehended every detail, however minor?

Evidently, the Church would have to go to such extremes to "deal with" a deficiency of knowledge such as Markk claims to have had.

I've not seen a sense of entitlement this palpable since the anti-Mormon protesters at the Manti Temple pageant last year complained about not being allowed on the temple grounds to use the porta-potties.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just to be clear, I wrote that finding this out was the START of my exodus from the church.

Such a thing should not even give a reasonable person pause. Joseph Smith actually tried to defend himself and three companions against a murderous mob? Oh the scandal!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Such a thing should not even give a reasonable person pause. Joseph Smith actually tried to defend himself and three companions against a murderous mob? Oh the scandal!

I think this is the point. I can't understand why Markk thinks this is such a negative thing. I can't see how this can even be close to being a testimony breaker, or even to place the seeds of doubt. Js defended himself and that means that he was an evil vile man. Does Markk also think that Elijah (I think it was Elijah) was a bad man for sending the bears to kill the kids becasue they made fun of him?

I think Markk would have a hard time if we all put a negative spin on Peter or Paul. One was a liar and the other issued extermination orders for Gods poeple. Markk do you consider Paul a prophet?

[Doctor Steuss]

[

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.

(Just don't like being left out of epic threads)

Eh? that is quite interesting. You are ordained a priest at 16 then an elder at 19. Perhaps this explains why Markk never knew of all of these trivial issues. If I understand Markk was BiC.

[ttribe]

I think this is the point. I can't understand why Markk thinks this is such a negative thing. I can't see how this can even be close to being a testimony breaker, or even to place the seeds of doubt. Js defended himself and that means that he was an evil vile man. Does Markk also think that Elijah (I think it was Elijah) was a bad man for sending the bears to kill the kids becasue they made fun of him?

I think Markk would have a hard time if we all put a negative spin on Peter or Paul. One was a liar and the other issued extermination orders for Gods poeple. Markk do you consider Paul a prophet?

Don't forget Moses - a convicted murderer.

[Scott Lloyd]

Eh? that is quite interesting. You are ordained a priest at 16 then an elder at 19. Perhaps this explains why Markk never knew of all of these trivial issues. If I understand Markk was BiC.

Not being advanced in the priesthood at the prescribed age could indicate some degree of inactivity, perhaps occasioned by skipping Church meetings, in which case one is apt to miss out on a great deal of instruction, essential and otherwise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't forget Moses - a convicted murderer.

Oh yeah great point. It seems that God seems to choose...... gasp..... wait for it....... imperfect men to be his prophets. That is if we give the benefit of the doubt to critics of the church.

[Daniel Peterson]

So the real issue here is, very likely, the Church's unethical failure to forcibly inform those who weren't interested and refused to pay attention.

[Scott Lloyd]

So the real issue here is, very likely, the Church's unethical failure to forcibly inform those who weren't interested and refused to pay attention.

I knew it was a false religion. I'm out of here. Where's that exit-letter template?

[ttribe]

Oh yeah great point. It seems that God seems to choose...... gasp..... wait for it....... imperfect men to be his prophets. That is if we give the benefit of the doubt to critics of the church.

It seems Noah might have had a bit of a drinking issue as well...and that Jonah guy, sure had a deep-seeded hatred for Ninevites.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not being advanced in the priesthood at the prescribed age could indicate some degree of inactivity, perhaps occasioned by skipping Church meetings, in which case one is apt to miss out on a great deal of instruction, essential and otherwise.

I am sure Markk will be in to defend himself, which of course, he is entightled to do.

But that is my thinking that just these little bits of info seem to me to think that Markk was not all that active. Of course I will wait to see what he says. And if Markk was not all that active in the church, that might explain why he thinks it was such a big deal to find some of these things out from sources other than what the church provides. And if this is the case then it is totally Markks issue and it is his fault. And he should stop blamming the church. Lets wait and see how it unfolds.

[Redefined]

I am sure Markk will be in to defend himself, which of course, he is entightled to do.

But that is my thinking that just these little bits of info seem to me to think that Markk was not all that active. Of course I will wait to see what he says. And if Markk was not all that active in the church, that might explain why he thinks it was such a big deal to find some of these things out from sources other than what the church provides. And if this is the case then it is totally Markks issue and it is his fault. And he should stop blamming the church. Lets wait and see how it unfolds.

I know Markk can defend himself, I just want to say, that just because somebody is advanced at the normal times in the church, doesn't mean they have a superior understanding to the gospel then a member that did it at a different pace (for whatever reasons.) Markk may have "came back with avengence" to that of his fellow LDS member who doesn't take the church as seriously.

[mysteryman]

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

You have been PROVEN wrong on this now several times!!! Peterson has demonstrated it was in church history manuals, I have demonstrated it was in the institute manual, and it was in Essentials in Church History which was the standard book on church history for years. What more do you need to concede you were wrong. You have been PROVEN wrong now multiple times, why not have the guts to admit it?

[ttribe]

I know Markk can defend himself, I just want to say, that just because somebody is advanced at the normal times in the church, doesn't mean they have a superior understanding to the gospel then a member that did it at a different pace (for whatever reasons.) Markk may have "came back with avengence" to that of his fellow LDS member who doesn't take the church as seriously.

I'm sorry...but a 34 yr. old Priest isn't just a little behind the priesthood advancement curve.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know Markk can defend himself, I just want to say, that just because somebody is advanced at the normal times in the church, doesn't mean they have a superior understanding to the gospel then a member that did it at a different pace (for whatever reasons.)

Of course not. But it could help explain a prior deficiency in knowledge on the part of one who more often than not absented himself from Church meetings and classes.

Markk may have "came back with avengence" to that of his fellow LDS member who doesn't take the church as seriously.

It is not uncommon for someone to find a new interest in Church history (from jaundiced sources) after he is already out or on the way out and to claim he was kept in the dark. It fits a pattern of self-validation/rationalization.

[Redefined]

I'm sorry...but a 34 yr. old Priest isn't just a little behind the priesthood advancement curve.

I just feel it is a bit presumptuous to imply that one's advancement in the priesthood would suggest that he is more willing to submit to outside sources.

[Redefined]

Of course not. But it could help explain a prior deficiency in knowledge on the part of one who more often than not absented himself from Church meetings and classes.

It is not uncommon for someone to find a new interest in Church history (from jaundiced sources) after he is already out or on the way out and to claim he was kept in the dark. It fits a pattern of self-validation/rationalization.

Well, what happens when his experience is validated by those exMormons that didn't miss a lesson? Maybe they are saying. . . you didn't miss anything at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just feel it is a bit presumptuous to imply that one's advancement in the priesthood would suggest that he is more willing to submit to outside sources.

It is normal and typical for an active male Church member to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood at age 19. If he didn't, the likeliest reason is that he rarely, if ever, attended Church meetings/classes. If that is the case, it seems unfair to blame the Church for a prior deficiency in knowledge about such things as Joseph Smith receiving a smuggled pistol at Carthage.

[mysteryman]

I think your all making too much out of that he was a Priest. It is very possible he went apostate at 18 prior to becoming an Elder, but had been active up to that point. Mark would have to tell us, but it really is not relevant. That he did not know something that most do is not that uncommon. He may have not listened or was absent those days. I did not know Joseph was a polygamist until I was 16 attending Seminary in High School. I am not sure why I had not heard it up to that point, but it certainly was not a case of it not being stated or hidden from me. I also did not know that the Book of Abraham had its origins in Egyptian papyri until I was on a mission. Why I had missed that I do not know. It is not uncommon to be active and to miss certain items.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just want to say, that just because somebody is advanced at the normal times in the church, doesn't mean they have a superior understanding to the gospel then a member that did it at a different pace (for whatever reasons.)

Obviously. Advancement in the priesthood on the normal schedule at, say, sixteen and eighteen or nineteen doesn't make one a scholar.

But somebody raised in the Church who is still a priest at age thirty-four? It's conceivable, but very unlikely, that such a person has been a faithful reader of the scriptures and Church history since his ordination as a priesthood eighteen or nineteen years before, a dedicated student in Gospel Doctrine classes (let alone Institute classes and/or BYU Church history classes), and an active attender at Church worship services and classes and firesides. Not impossible, but quite improbable. It simply doesn't happen much. Not in my experience, anyway.

And when such a person's claims that the Church has failed to communicate something are so easily falsified, that fact tends to put the responsibility rather solidly on the inattentive, inactive non-reader rather than on the Church.

[Redefined]

It is normal and typical for an active male Church member to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood at age 19. If he didn't, the likeliest reason is that he rarely, if ever, attended Church meetings/classes. If that is the case, it seems unfair to blame the Church for a prior deficiency in knowledge about such things as Joseph Smith receiving a smuggled pistol at Carthage.

I guess you may have posted this while I was posting my last response.