Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?

[CA Steve]

To question of the OP.

"Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?"

I think so.

Don't want to send your thread in the wrong direction.

But I think a good example of it might be that if you were to poll the membership of any given ward as to how many wives Joseph Smith had? Well... what do you think they would say in response to this question about one of the most important figures in the CoJCoLDS.

I am not sure if this is a good example of 'covering up' the past. so much as avoiding it.

The response, in many cases, would be to question your faith and/or to ask why you were questioning theirs.

[frankenstein]

I do not see the relationship of 2 Nephi to what you are saying.

Lehi teaches their must be opposition in all things and " having no joy for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

my point being is that I do not believe what Lehi teaches applies to knowing if Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not need to know the "good" and "evil/sin/trangressions/misdeeds/natural man/shortcomings" of a persons life to get conformation of the Spirit if the person is a Prophet.

[Jeff K.]

That is a good point. Consider that in the time of Moses some would have considered him a murderer.

[bookofmormontruth]

I'd suggest you read this very pro-Mormon paper (from FAIR) on Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam. Anti-Mormon's didn't make up Adam-God. The editor and transciber of the Journal of Discourses didn't, either. Brigham Young did.

I appreciate your suggestion and it was a good read (like the other several articles from FAIR on the same subject with differing conclusions), thank you. I also never said anti-Mormons made up the Adam-God theory, I was stating that they use it as one of their weak quivers against LDS members. Regurgitation at its finest!

And I feel perfectly fine and faithful with both acknowledging this, recognizing he was mistaken, and still being a faithful member of the Church who acknowledges that Brigham faithfully and effectively served in his apostolic and presidential office.

Great! I am glad for you and with all respect to Matthew Brown, he is just a scholar. I am more interested in what our current leaders, our official standard works (which doesn't include the JOD - imagine that!) and Church official publications say on the matter. And they say nothing in regards to it, unless someone can state otherwise?

The material can be, and is, very interesting for faithful members who seek to understand historical fact, and divide it from fiction and non-authentic tradition, and to understand faithfully the true nature of revelation and the prophetic office.

Or we can simply follow our leaders admonition to stick with the basics and forget what was said in the past to things we don't have a full or complete understanding about.

The problem is that it is anti-Mormons who often take control by introducing this information to members in a destructive polemical context, instead of faithful and academically informed members sharing it and introducing in a constructive and contextualized setting.

Don't waste your time. Share it with honest, truth seekers, not with those who lie in wait to deceive. There is a night and day difference.

We give the critics the power by ignoring it altogether, or white-washing it with fake explanations to be a reactionary counter to what they are saying.

I respectfully disagree. We are the experts, not outsiders looking in who have ill intentions. We have the authority to speak for own doctrines and our own history and the Adam-God theory is just that, a theory. It is not entertained at Church meetings, general conferences and Church publications. It is not doctrine, end of story. If President Monson and the 1st Presidency changes that, I am sure Matthew Brown will let us know.

[CA Steve]

I wonder if Moroni and Mormon ever sat around and wondered which part of their records were scripture and which were not?

" Dad you know that Abinidi was just speaking as a man when he preached that Nephi-God theory, right?."

[bookofmormontruth]

I wonder if Moroni and Mormon ever sat around and wondered which part of their records were scripture and which were not?

" Dad you know that Abinidi was just speaking as a man when he preached that Nephi-God theory, right?."

I am not sure why this is so complicated.

Just like us, they didn't have to wonder what was doctrine and just like us, they relied on their prophet leaders in what was defined as the standard works.

I will still be waiting for anyone to show where in the standard works that the Adam-God theory is doctrine. Well? And in the meantime, I will be wondering why the faithless continue to propagate a false doctrine like their salvation depended on it.

[TAO]

Can Nack or Consili please address my earlier post; I am pretty sure this isn't as clear as you guys make it - that is unless it is preferrable to drop the subject, which would be fine also. Just don't leave me hanging, that is all .

Thanks, sorry for the hassle.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[David T]

Tao, in response to my saying "CFR where Brigham Young makes a clear, unequivicoal statement that he uses Adam interchageably for two different individuals, both God the Father, and a distinct Adam. ", you replied with:

"Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species." (JoD 4:215, Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857)

This is not an instance of the term 'Adam being applied to several individuals, it is a case of the term Heavenly Father being applied. It has reference to Brigham's understanding of the familial hierarchy of the Three Gods of Creation, Michael/Adam, Jehovah (his Father), and Elohim (the Grandfather). Brigham is stating that all three could will full propriety be referenced as our Heavenly Father, being that our spirits (which includes that of Christ, who is not at this time identified with Jehovah) are either directly or indirectly procreated by all three of them. This quote is actually in direct opposition to the point you are trying to use it to make.

However, it does harmonize with the classic Nutall Diary citation of Brigham's Lecture at the Veil:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it.... We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. ... Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child.... Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews. but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life...

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.

"

I think Brigham's assumptions and understanding were incorrect. But I do think it's clear (as Brown's above cited paper shows) that this was actually the clear speculation that he was publicly presenting - and others, such as Orson Pratt, publicly deeply opposed.

Yes, he was wrong. Yet I still hold that he served ably and nobly in his apostolic and presidential office.

[Duncan]

I believe the answer to this question is an unqualified, "Yes."

For purposes of this thread, I take as a case-in-point Brigham Young's teachings on Adam and God.

Brigham Young taught that Adam is God (not Elohim, but a fully exalted God beneath Elohim) and that Adam is the father of our spirits.

The fact that Brigham Young taught this principle on a host of occasions in a plethora of venues is "covered up" by the LDS Church.

It is officially denied that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing.

And when it turns out upon further investigation that Brigham Young actually did teach it, the official denial turns into an official explanation that he was misquoted.

When it turns out Brigham Young was not misquoted, the official explanation shifts to his being misinterpreted.

When it turns out he was not misinterpreted, the official explanations peter out, unless it is to say that Brigham Young was wrong. (Here I am thinking of a certain letter by Elder McConkie.)

But it is a rare thing for the average Mormon to go past the first official denial that it was ever taught. Hence the "cover-up" serves its purpose of dissuading the average Mormon from getting to any of the other stages.

Any comments on this rather obvious attempt of the LDS Church to cover up its past?

Any thoughts as to why this should be the case?

Any other examples are welcome.

For the record, I am not saying this practice is necessarily an "evil" thing, nor am I saying it is confined to the LDS Church.

But I think we go a long way in coming to grips with reality when we recognize and accept that such is the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If the Church covered up its history like in this example we wouldn't even know about it because it would be,you know, covered up.

[TAO]

This is not an instance of the term 'Adam being applied to several individuals, it is a case of the term Heavenly Father being applied.

Look at the quote more carefully. In our theology, who is Adam's Father? The same person who is our father - Heavenly Father. Thus, our theology fits in, and as Brigham Young says, it doesn't really matter does it? Whom is our God, be it Adam, his father (Heavenly Father) or the father before him (first father???) isn't important - that we worship him and serve him as we should is all that matters =).

It has reference to Brigham's understanding of the familial hierarchy of the Three Gods of Creation, Michael/Adam, Jehovah (his Father), and Elohim (the Grandfather). Brigham is stating that all three could will full propriety be referenced as our Heavenly Father, being that our spirits (which includes that of Christ, who is not at this time identified with Jehovah) are either directly or indirectly procreated by all three of them.

Nevertheless, if you look at some of his other quotes, such as...

We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. (JD 10:230-231)

...it becomes rather clear that God the Father is not Adam. After all, BY did not believe that Adam procreated Jesus Christ - see this quote:

I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Elohiem. You are well acquainted with Him, for these is not a soul of you but what has lived in His house and dwelt with Him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become acquainted with Him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what you did know... There is not a person here today but what is a son or a daughter of that Being. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here. This, perhaps is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in the world not to believe it. If you do not believe it, cease to call Him Father; and when you pray, pray to some other character. (JD 9:216) J

So several things can be established

-Brigham believed in a God the Father other than Adam.

-Brigham believed Jesus Christ was born of this God the Father

-Brigham believed Adam was also born of this Father.

-Brigham may have believed that we were spiritually procreated by Adam, rather than God the Father.

This quote is actually in direct opposition to the point you are trying to use it to make.

However, it does harmonize with the classic Nutall Diary citation of Brigham's Lecture at the Veil:

That seems to contradict with the statement I pointed out earlier, does it not?

Also, if it has been removed from the temple ceremony, wouldn't it constitute under this statement?

"I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years - over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter!day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, "I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!"

I think Brigham's assumptions and understanding were incorrect. But I do think it's clear (as Brown's above cited paper shows) that this was actually the clear speculation that he was publicly presenting - and others, such as Orson Pratt, publicly deeply opposed.

Yes, he was wrong. Yet I still hold that he served ably and nobly in his apostolic and presidential office.

Nack, just to tell you, I'm not standing in a specific place on the Adam God theory, however, I do disagree that it is so clear as people make it try to seem. Brigham had many contradicting statements, and I would rather ask the man myself than presume what he means by his statements.

[Senator]

I do not need to know the "good" and "evil/sin/trangressions/misdeeds/natural man/shortcomings" of a persons life to get conformation of the Spirit if the person is a Prophet.

I'm not sold on this idea.

At best, I would suggest that both, an empirically derived assessment, and the spiritual are called for in the determination of a true prophet.

For one thing, I do not recall a scriptural directive to employ the spirit in verifying prophet claims. I may be wrong, and I'm open for correction.

Rather, we are directed to persue the observables of a claimed prophet, whether their fruit be good or bad.

[Sky]

I

[mrmendoza]

Shortly after I joined the Church, back in '74, one of the many people who had been trying to show me that Mormonisim was a "false" religion, showed me a quote that he found where BY was speaking about Adam, being God, and some other stuff. I did vagely recall hearing something about it before I was even baptised, but other then that, had never seen the actual quote, or heard anything more about it, but my friends "revelation" to me was not a problem for me. I didn't try to explain it away or anything like that. I simply told him that "We don't teach that!" When he tried to tell me that we must believe that because BY said it, I again said "We don't teach that!" "I don't care what BY said, I don't know what BY was trying to say or why, but the Church does not teach that today, so I'm not concerned about it!"

I didn't try to deny that By said what he said, or cover it up in any way other then what I said. I don't believe that the Church is trying to cover up anything simply because we don't teach the Adam-God theory, inasmuch as it isn't considered "true doctrine"! What then would be the point in teaching about it as a church? As I and others have said about historical "mysteries and misunderstandings", there are many venues with which to study about these things outside of "official" church publications, so we don't have to waste time in our Church meetings on subjects that are not important to our salvation!

Mile

[David T]

Tao, something Adam Jr/Sr defenders/ Brigham-Never-Taught-Adam-God defenders often forget to do is recognize or acknowledge the development chronological process of the ideas and contemporary (and evolving) usage of the terms, both by Brigham and by others. Brigham developed this theory and adapted it in stages over time, as Brown showed very well in his paper that I linked earlier. Did you read it?

By the way, your reference is wrong. It is not found in JoD 9:216 - it's 4:216.

[DH]

They'd probably prefer "de-emphasize" to "cover up," but yeah, the Church seems distinctly uncomfortable with its past, both the history and the doctrines. Have to admit I kinda rolled my eyes when I heard President Hinckley say "I don't know that we teach that." Really? Well, I know that we teach that, because I've been taught that stuff in church all my life, and I have a hard time believing that the President of the Church knows less about our doctrine than I do!

The way they treated Leonard Arrington was kinda crappy, too, if I may say so. I can only hope that they'll start opening up a bit more. Sure, some things are "true, but not useful," but why not let the people learn that for themselves instead of some Tsentralniy Komitet (Central Committee)?

Let's be honest with ourselves--some of our forebears had some pretty goofy ideas, and some of those goofy ideas found their way into General Conference addresses. And being human, they also made mistakes. Pretending it didn't happen isn't going to make it go away. IMHO, it is in our own best interest to be open about our past, and discuss it frankly, rather than letting the anti-Mormons control the discourse by virtue of being the only ones talking about it. If, for example, we Latter-day Saints openly discuss the fact that Brigham Young was a racist (J.S. gave blacks the priesthood, after all), we can steal thunder away from the antis and more convincingly show that we have made progress as a people. If we pretend it was never so, people will (rightly) think we're trying to hide things, and will be less likely to take us seriously, or listen to the gospel message.

[bookofmormontruth]

When as a Church did we start having a concern about what anti-Mormons think? Who cares if they believe in the Adam-God theory and that Brigham Young did too. They have plenty of resources (7 + articles on Adam-God theory on fairlds.org alone) to avoid the same regurgitation that we hear over and over.

Shouldn't our focus be on teaching and sharing basic doctrines to the honest truth seekers of the world and not trying to make it "right" with anti-Mormons? And yes the regurgitation comes from anti-Mormons - not from the honest truth seekers.

[nicolasconnault]

They'd probably prefer "de-emphasize" to "cover up," but yeah, the Church seems distinctly uncomfortable with its past, both the history and the doctrines. Have to admit I kinda rolled my eyes when I heard President Hinckley say "I don't know that we teach that." Really? Well, I know that we teach that, because I've been taught that stuff in church all my life, and I have a hard time believing that the President of the Church knows less about our doctrine than I do!

The way they treated Leonard Arrington was kinda crappy, too, if I may say so. I can only hope that they'll start opening up a bit more. Sure, some things are "true, but not useful," but why not let the people learn that for themselves instead of some Tsentralniy Komitet (Central Committee)?

Let's be honest with ourselves--some of our forebears had some pretty goofy ideas, and some of those goofy ideas found their way into General Conference addresses. And being human, they also made mistakes. Pretending it didn't happen isn't going to make it go away. IMHO, it is in our own best interest to be open about our past, and discuss it frankly, rather than letting the anti-Mormons control the discourse by virtue of being the only ones talking about it. If, for example, we Latter-day Saints openly discuss the fact that Brigham Young was a racist (J.S. gave blacks the priesthood, after all), we can steal thunder away from the antis and more convincingly show that we have made progress as a people. If we pretend it was never so, people will (rightly) think we're trying to hide things, and will be less likely to take us seriously, or listen to the gospel message.

The trouble is that our critics get the picture that we are moving away from an overall shady, embarrassing past. That is simply not so. The genuine issues of the past have been grossly over-represented at the detriment of the mostly glorious and praise-worthy history of the Latter-Day Saints. I am not ashamed of our past, I acknowledge a few hiccups along the way, but I revel in the divinely inspired sermons that were given, the righteous lives that were lived, and the glorious miracles that were manifest.

[Deborah]

If the Church covered up its history like in this example we wouldn't even know about it because it would be,you know, covered up.

This is what I love about "cover ups" and conspiracy theories. Everyone knows about them so how can they be so secret.

[CA Steve]

This is what I love about "cover ups" and conspiracy theories. Everyone knows about them so how can they be so secret.

That pretty much puts a dagger in most of Cleon's work.

ETA. Of course we can also dismiss as absurd any notion of secret combinations.

[Mortal Man]

No, I'd say the qualifier would be, "It used to, but is presently making major progress in not doing nearly as much today, and is in fact being very upfront in presenting unprecedented access to once restricted primary documents"

It remains to be seen whether they'll let Brent back into the archives.

[LeSellers]

This is what I love about ... conspiracy theories. Everyone knows about them so how can they be so secret.

There are many ways to hide a thing, among which is "hiding it in plain sight".

We have been carefully taught to pooh-pooh "conspiracy theories", to belittle those who reveal them. Thus, the conspiracy, although in the open, remains a secret. After all, is that not what Satan himself, master of the lie, chief dissimulator, has done with his own identity: to tell us that he is no devil because there is none, even while prophets have, for millennia, told us explicitly that he is the enemy of all righteousness?

Lehi

[Obiwan]

I'm glad the Church doesn't cover up it's history, if it did I wouldn't be a part of it.

I'm glad that as a Latter-day Saint that I belong to a religion that keeps itself separate from scholarship, that it doesn't try to hide it's history, that it allows it's members to learn, grow, and think for ourselves, that it doesn't tell us what is true and false history, thus not telling us what to think.

Isn't it interesting how anti-mormons complain that every LDS scholar "works for the Church, and can't be trusted" when the Church actually keeps itself entirely separate, these individuals not actually working for the Church? Isn't it interesting that if LDS scholar's actually did, thus not being allowed to say anything other than what the Church allows them, that we would again be accused of saying the same things? Isn't it interesting that anti-mormons lament that they don't get "official" pronouncements from the Church on things of history, and thus they aren't willing to believe our words because "a Prophet didn't say it", while if they actually DID get official pronouncements on things of history, that we would be accused of following like blind sheep being told what to do?

Anti-mormons live in a world of whey we are darned if we do and darned if we don't. We simply can't win in their eyes. To them our entire existence is flawed, and so our every action and thought has some "sinister purpose", no matter if we do or say one way or another. For example they say being blind sheep is bad by following the Prophets, but then when we tell them that Prophets are actually human and can error, that we don't actually hang on every single word as being infallible (thus their view has never been a view within mormonism), they then accuse us of not following the Prophets, not following what our Gospel teaches. Of course, they are clueless that their problem is that they are misrepresenting mormonism in the first place and at each step, so no matter what we say, we loose.

[cinepro]

I don't know about "covering up" the past, but I have a sneaking suspicion one of the largest current cover ups going on in the Church is the true financial picture of the City Creek Mall.

I wouldn't be surprised if, within my lifetime, facts and figures about the project were leaked that proved very damaging to the Church.

The other big current "cover up" would be the stats regarding Church membership and attendance.

[Duncan]

I don't know about "covering up" the past, but I have a sneaking suspicion one of the largest current cover ups going on in the Church is the true financial picture of the City Creek Mall.

I wouldn't be surprised if, within my lifetime, facts and figures about the project were leaked that proved very damaging to the Church.

The other big current "cover up" would be the stats regarding Church membership and attendance.

I would agree about the attendance numbers and activity rates, I don't know anything about the Mall thing. There is a midsingles conference (25-35) in a Canadian city here in June, according to the facebook page about it there is roughly 105 attending or might attend of which there is 70 girls going, so if everyone shows up...30 girls are going to be wondering where are the men?

[USU78]

I don't know about "covering up" the past, but I have a sneaking suspicion one of the largest current cover ups going on in the Church is the true financial picture of the City Creek Mall.

I wouldn't be surprised if, within my lifetime, facts and figures about the project were leaked that proved very damaging to the Church.

The other big current "cover up" would be the stats regarding Church membership and attendance.

Oh brother.

USU "Stinky Pink looks nice, don't it?" 78