Chapel Mormons

[Scott Lloyd]

Did you read the link?

Yes.

It does not answer the question I put to you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is interesting because I have been told in this forum that such and such specifics are insignificant. This is why they aren't incorporated into lesson plans.

Such as JS having a gun in the jail? You mean to tell me that the truth claims of the church hang on this factoid?

[ttribe]

This is interesting because I have been told in this forum that such and such specifics are insignificant. This is why they aren't incorporated into lesson plans.

Oh my...can you just address the issue? The Church HAS published in numerous places information and discussion on these "controversial" topics (look at DCP's posts in this thread for an example on the pistol in the jail thing, for example). That all of this stuff isn't in the Gospel Essentials manual is a completely different issue.

To simplify, the facts are these: 1) critics have asserted that the Church has a "policy" of not disclosing certain "problems" in it's history; 2) evidence is shown in this thread that the Church has published many things about these certain "problems". The natural questions are: 1) If there is such a policy, why does the Church violate it so frequently? 2) If the Church violates this "policy" so frequently, is this really a "policy"?

[Redefined]

http://www.utlm.org/...etters/no47.htm

"Since qualified historians had been working with these documents for ten years, we can see no legitimate reason why the Church would have to reclassify and reevaluate them at this time. We can only believe that this is a move to suppress the material from Church historians. Whether the Church can keep these things hidden remains to be seen. The bad publicity that this is bringing the Church could very well force the General Authorities to reconsider their decision."

Since it has been shown that the church is horrible at hiddin it history, what do you make of this statement. So much for the argument, and the "apostacy germs". This is not a very well written piece of propaganda. The church doesn't want people to know about its history so what does the church do? print it's history.

Still waiting for a refernce that the church is to only publish faith promoting history.

The fact that the information is increasingly accessible, doesn't mean that the church didn't try to avoid the spreading of "disease germs". Yes, in the new information technology era that is upon us, I would say that the church will be forced to discuss issues.

[wenglund]

Here is a quote from somebody that I have really come to admire myself. I think he says anything better than I could ever say 100 percent of the time.

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[Redefined]

The great irony here, is that the person posting this has intentionally concealed his/her identity. Gotta love the huge double standard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Did you see his name and email posted at the bottom before the references?

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact that the information is increasingly accessible, doesn't mean that the church didn't try to avoid the spreading of "disease germs". Yes, in the new information technology era that is upon us, I would say that the church will be forced to discuss issues.

On the example at hand, the matter of the pistol at Carthage, Daniel Peterson cited numerous sources from 1844 to now that recount this fact, despite Markk's repeated denials.

[ttribe]

The fact that the information is increasingly accessible, doesn't mean that the church didn't try to avoid the spreading of "disease germs". Yes, in the new information technology era that is upon us, I would say that the church will be forced to discuss issues.

There seems to be some kind of break down in communication. Let me clarify (again) - not only did the Church NOT conceal this information, it actually published books, manuals, etc. with this information in it for the use and consumption of its members and anyone else who happened to pick it up.

[Scott Lloyd]

Such as JS having a gun in the jail? You mean to tell me that the truth claims of the church hang on this factoid?

Strange to say, it began Markk's "exodus." Though, if he was still a priest at age 31, I suspect he was already on his way out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The fact that the information is increasingly accessible, doesn't mean that the church didn't try to avoid the spreading of "disease germs". Yes, in the new information technology era that is upon us, I would say that the church will be forced to discuss issues.

Um yeah, so even if I accpeted your spin the church is doing a horrible job of hidding its history. I don't know why you have been sucked into this. It is quite sad.

The church wasn't forced to discuss "these issues" in the past, why would they be force to do it now? This thread is great evidence that the church hides its own history by publishing its own history. Common Amy, stop this nonsense.

[Redefined]

I will take Daniel Peterson's word that there are sources with such information. I don't think it is too much to ask to add that into the lesson when talking about Joseph Smith's matrydom. It is at least more significant to history to show Joseph Smith in the least was willing to defend himself. In the least it is more significant then the fact that Joseph Smith was good at grappling.

[ttribe]

I will take Daniel Peterson's word that there are sources with such information. I don't think it is too much to ask to add that into the lesson when talking about Joseph Smith's matrydom. It is at least more significant to history to show Joseph Smith in the least was willing to defend himself. In the least it is more significant then the fact that Joseph Smith was good at grappling.

Please answer my questions - Post Link

[Redefined]

Um yeah, so even if I accpeted your spin the church is doing a horrible job of hidding its history. I don't know why you have been sucked into this. It is quite sad.

The church wasn't forced to discuss "these issues" in the past, why would they be force to do it now? This thread is great evidence that the church hides its own history by publishing its own history. Common Amy, stop this nonsense.

When even the best of LDS feel that the church wasn't forthcoming, then that is cause for concern, and maybe the church should work on this. . . because, if that is all it is, and it is no big deal one way or the other, then why not work on correcting this misunderstanding rather than lose more and more members because of the such misunderstood "faith-promoting policy". I don't think it would be to much to add certain "insignificant" facts into lessons.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Strange to say, it began Markk's "exodus." Though, if he was still a priest at age 31, I suspect he was already on his way out.

Why do you have to twist eveything Markk says, he was 34. Geeze.

Anyway that seems to be what I gather from the current known information about Markk.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When even the best of LDS feel that the church wasn't forthcoming, then that is cause for concern, and maybe the church should work on this. . . because, if that is all it is, and it is no big deal one way or the other, then why not work on correcting this misunderstanding rather than lose more and more members because of the such misunderstood "faith-promoting policy". I don't think it would be to much to add certain "insignificant" facts into lessons.

Wait a second, what does the church need to work on? Publishing it's hisotry? It already does that. Now if you mean to state that the church should publish all of the little factoids in church manuals, I have to ask why? How does knowing that JS had a gun at Carthage and that he used it, bring one closer to Jesus Christ. How does it expand on the truth claims of the church? I really need you to answer this last question. I think if you do you might see the reason for the way we have been responding. It gets to the heart of the issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

I will take Daniel Peterson's word that there are sources with such information. I don't think it is too much to ask to add that into the lesson when talking about Joseph Smith's matrydom.

The current gospel doctrine teacher's manual on Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants includes it. And that manual has been around for at least the past 12 years.

And this should not be misinterpreted as an acknowledgment that it wasn't in gospel doctrine lesson manuals prior to that.

[Deborah]

While asking me to be honest, loyal, obedient, and to give time and tithing, church policy is that the only Mormon history told should be a so-called

[Calm]

A very insightful analysis, calmoriah.

Thank you.

I think those critics who view things in this way and use the martyrdom issue as evidence that the Church is suppressing its history have a huge problem in that in order for their theory to work, they have to assume that Church leadership views the "'pistol' invalideates 'lamb to the slaughter'" in the same way they do, that the leadership thinks this was inappropriate, unChristlike etc.

Unfortunately for them, there are several articles on lds.org itself that talks about JS's actions of shooting as admirable, defending his friends etc.

It seems remarkable that, like Markk on this thread, they continue to claim victory even while standing on a pile of their dead, defeated arguments.

But assuming that everyone has to think like the critics themselves or else they are being dishonest or ignorant or that there is only one way to interpret an event is indicative of the black and white world so many LDS critics live in.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good grief. What a bunch of whiny tripe. These people need to get a grip and take some responsibility.

I can't believe we are still arguing about the pistol. These good, faithful men were locked up in a room with a painted mob determined to do them harm and some critics are concerned about one little gun the prophet had? Why don't we ever hear criticism of the "upright" citizens who committed such an atrocity?

Including Thomas C. Sharp, arguably the ringleader, although I don't think he was present at the martyrdom. He was the editor of the newspaper in the neighboring town of Warsaw, and an influential opinion leader in the town. What an upstanding individual.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems remarkable that, like Markk on this thread, they continue to claim victory even while standing on a pile of their dead, defeated arguments.

This may well be my nominee for MADB quote of the year.

[Calm]

The current gospel doctrine teacher's manual on Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants includes it. And that manual has been around for at least the past 12 years.

And this should not be misinterpreted as an acknowledgment that it wasn't in gospel doctrine lesson manuals prior to that.

As well as each of the Primary, Seminary and Institute manual that deals with Church History. So that makes for every age group except Nursery getting taught about the gun.

I'd like to know what class is left that Redefined and others think should be teaching this.

[wenglund]

Did you see his name and email posted at the bottom before the references?

No...I didn't see your name and email posted before the reference--hence, my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Redefined]

Oh it helps so much that all of us ExMormons that have experienced this are viewed as "whiny tripe".

How about not teaching that the "mob" consisted of bigoted haters that just wanted to persecute Joseph Smith for his religion. . . oh those weren't the words exactly. . . well that is how it is coming across to a very large amount of people. What was the Mob's problem? What does the church say is the reason Joseph Smith and the early saints went through so much persecution? And how come the church can speculate the reasons. . . PERIOD, and any explanation that paints Joseph Smith in a less than noble light is not fact. I don't care if Joseph Smith armed himself. . . but I shouldn't have to be an adult Mormon, fighting attacks from "outsiders" that know more facts about the church I was raised in then I do!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The current gospel doctrine teacher's manual on Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants includes it. And that manual has been around for at least the past 12 years.

And this should not be misinterpreted as an acknowledgment that it wasn't in gospel doctrine lesson manuals prior to that.

Oh snap, why did the church hide this information from me. I didn't know this. Man.

Sorry couldn't resist.

[ttribe]

Oh it helps so much that all of us ExMormons that have experienced this are viewed as "whiny tripe".

How about not teaching that the "mob" consisted of bigoted haters that just wanted to persecute Joseph Smith for his religion. . . oh those weren't the words exactly. . . well that is how it is coming across to a very large amount of people. What was the Mob's problem? What does the church say is the reason Joseph Smith and the early saints went through so much persecution? And how come the church can speculate the reasons. . . PERIOD, and any explanation that paints Joseph Smith in a less than noble light is not fact. I don't care if Joseph Smith armed himself. . . but I shouldn't have to be an adult Mormon, fighting attacks from "outsiders" that know more facts about the church I was raised in then I do!

Again, please answer my questions - Post Link