Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[Mike Richards]

One thing that I like about the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is the openness and even encouragement of dissecting negative historical aspects of the faith. Things such as historical racism among Quaker congregations is a commonly discussed topic. Other issues that are talked about and studied include schisms within the church, maltreatment of native americans, etc.. The purpose of these studies and discussions are to learn from the past and find ways to avoid mistakes in the future. Certainly, the historical focus is more often on the positive aspects of the faith, but the level of openness and self-reflection (as a faith community) contrasts favorably with other faiths that I am personally familiar with.

cacheman

That's fascinating. I have a question, but I'm not sure how to express it. It's something like the following: do you know of anything unique about them that enables them to do this effectively that other churches/organizations are missing to the point that they are (arguably) hesitant to raise the negative aspects of their history?

While I believe, as I said, that there are very good reasons the church teaches what it teaches and doesn't teach what it doesn't, I also agree with a post I read here previously about the A, B, and C versions of church history--(it said something like) if we could get the general membership from the A version taught in sunday school to the C version (perhaps similar to B.H. Roberts comprehensive history combined with Bushman's RSR), there'd be no fear of losing them to the B version taught by the churches enemies.

[Libs]

Members from the 1950s and 1960s would be startled to learn that you were unaware of Joseph's marital life. That was one of things the LDS and Catholic kids at our schools fought over: Papish/Cardinal sin along with Joseph's wives.

That may be so, but I didn't grow up in the LDS Church. I was a convert. I think I kind of vaguely knew Joseph had other wives, but it was never discussed in any detail. Emma is the only one I heard about. Definitely, didn't know the ages of some of his wives or that he had been sealed to other men's wives, while their husbands were still living.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm a professional historian. ALL history--whether religious, purely secular, or even personal--is a limited and selective retelling. It could never be anything else. As José Ortega y Gassét has pointed out, communication becomes possible only if, out of the literally infinite number of things which could be said, we choose to leave the vast majority of them unsaid. People who want the Church, any church, to tell the 'whole truth' are asking for the impossible. What they really mean is that, driven by a very different agenda, they would select a different but just as equally limited set of points to focus on, 'hiding' everything else.

[Duncan]

I'm a professional historian. ALL history--whether religious, purely secular, or even personal--is a limited and selective retelling. It could never be anything else. As José Ortega y Gassét has pointed out, communication becomes possible only if, out of the literally infinite number of things which could be said, we choose not to say the vast majority of them. People who want the Church, any church, to tell the 'whole truth' are asking for the impossible. What they really mean is that, driven by a very different agenda, they would select a different but just as equally limited set of points to focus on, 'hiding' everything else.

No historian could in a million years read everything ever connected to our Church. They would have to comb through all the documents from around the globe (and that is just what survives) cinduct detailed oral interviews with every living member about their hopes and dreams and experiences. It is beyond impossible to have some master "objective" history given our mortal limitations. Plus as soon as you publish this trillion page document like Staek Directories it is obsolete as soon as it is printed because new people come in and pass away and the ebb and flow of life!

[Libs]

I'm a professional historian. ALL history--whether religious, purely secular, or even personal--is a limited and selective retelling. It could never be anything else. As José Ortega y Gassét has pointed out, communication becomes possible only if, out of the literally infinite number of things which could be said, we choose to leave the vast majority of them unsaid. People who want the Church, any church, to tell the 'whole truth' are asking for the impossible. What they really mean is that, driven by a very different agenda, they would select a different but just as equally limited set of points to focus on, 'hiding' everything else.

I understand that. I just think there are some things which really are important enough to discuss, at church. Two major things that LDS (ex-LDS) have had trouble with are the circumstances surrounding Joseph's polygamy and the fact that the Book of Abraham is not a word for word translation from the known papyri (something else I didn't know, for along time). Some things are more damaging than others....and these two things, I have seen talked about, among Ex-LDS, more than any other.

[consiglieri]

I believe it is a fair statement that the LDS Church hides parts of its history it does not consider to be faith promoting.

I understand a common rejoinder is that if a person accessed all manner of noncorrelated publications, they could find out for themselves outside church meetings and general conference.

But when a good 90% of active LDS do not know about these things, and the leadership forbids their exploration in church meetings, can it honestly be said the LDS Church is doing something other than "hiding" its history?

By the way, in my very uncorrelated Gospel Doctrine class, we spent an entire session a few years back discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mike Richards]

I understand that. I just think there are some things which really are important enough to discuss, at church. Two major things that LDS (ex-LDS) have had trouble with are the circumstances surrounding Joseph's polygamy and the fact that the Book of Abraham is not a word for word translation from the known papyri (something else I didn't know, for along time). Some things are more damaging than others....and these two things, I have seen talked about, among Ex-LDS, more than any other.

An issue that needs to be addressed with this suggestion (along with going from A History to C History) is what would the attrition rate be. If openly addressing these topics leads to 25% of the membership leaving the church, but avoiding the issues (or just discussing them in the ensign so most people don't see them any way ) leads to only 10% of the membership leaving, then would you still think it should be done? I would imagine some people would look at my proposed scenario of people leaving and say, "But if those 25% would leave if they knew the truth, shouldn't they be told so they can make their decisions based on as much information as possible?" I think that would be a legitimate question. So, then, the better question might be: Is it better to enter the kingdom of heaven halt and maimed with only a partial history or "go to hell" with another (slightly more informed) partial history?

[Mike Richards]

But when a good 90% of active LDS do not know about these things, and the leadership forbids their exploration in church meetings, can it honestly be said the LDS Church is doing something other than "hiding" its history?

Is 90% a guess or do you have some data that actually shows that?

Also, while I don't doubt that it has been said, when you say the the "leadership forbids their exploration in church meetings" what exactly do you mean (I'd be more interested in quotes from conference than in "my bishop/stake pres said...")?

Thanks!

[Deborah]

I understand that. I just think there are some things which really are important enough to discuss, at church. Two major things that LDS (ex-LDS) have had trouble with are the circumstances surrounding Joseph's polygamy and the fact that the Book of Abraham is not a word for word translation from the known papyri (something else I didn't know, for along time).

You have to understand we simply don't know enough about Joseph's polyandry to discuss it in a classroom. It would all be supposition. We just don't have the records to explain why it was done and what the thought processes were. If you think you know all about it you are mistaken.

Given the persecution and the fact that we know some of the papyri were burned I don't know why anyone would be positive the papyri we have is what he used to translate and to hang one's testimony, or lack of one, on that makes no sense.

[Deborah]

But when a good 90% of active LDS do not know about these things, and the leadership forbids their exploration in church meetings, can it honestly be said the LDS Church is doing something other than "hiding" its history?

Forbids? You really do exaggerate. Maybe it's not encouraged but that's never stopped anyone in meetings from bringing some of these things up. Plus I've had plenty of discussions with individuals about these things. Really with so little time and so many people at different levels of knowledge I don't know what you expect.

[Duncan]

I believe it is a fair statement that the LDS Church hides parts of its history it does not consider to be faith promoting.

I understand a common rejoinder is that if a person accessed all manner of noncorrelated publications, they could find out for themselves outside church meetings and general conference.

But when a good 90% of active LDS do not know about these things, and the leadership forbids their exploration in church meetings, can it honestly be said the LDS Church is doing something other than "hiding" its history?

By the way, in my very uncorrelated Gospel Doctrine class, we spent an entire session a few years back discussing the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What Church meeting have we been forbidden to explore Church history? Because if that is true then all the BYU Church History dept. didn't get the message or any other member who likes Church history

[cksalmon]

We may also review it along these lines.

Do people avoid discussing difficult subjects of their past? I think by and large the answer is yes, they do.

I can't speak to your "by and large: yes" response. I assume there's some sort of "qualia" involved there, to misuse the term. But, no, personally, I never avoid discussing difficult subjects of my [denomination's] past.

You seem to think that is a normative response. Why?

[MelvinCJohnson]

You have to understand we simply don't know enough about Joseph's polyandry to discuss it in a classroom. It would all be supposition. We just don't have the records to explain why it was done and what the thought processes were. If you think you know all about it you are mistaken. /// Given the persecution and the fact that we know some of the papyri were burned I don't know why anyone would be positive the papyri we have is what he used to translate and to hang one's testimony, or lack of one, on that makes no sense.

The place to start is In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd M. Compton. (1) No, it is not supposition. (2) Many records exist that can shine light on "why it was done and what the thought processes were." The literature, antagonistic and mopologistic and fair/balanced, abounds. Other works exist about Joseph's plural marriages and polyandry, yet the place to begin is Compton.

[TAO]

I don't think the history is "hidden", but I do think a lot of important stuff is left out of Sunday School classes.

I felt like I should have been told about Joseph Smith's polygamy and the circumstances surrounding it, since polygamy is considered doctrine and he is the one who received the revelation. I don't recall any of that being discussed. I don't think I was even aware that he had other wives. I do remember being told that he had been sealed to many women (and even men) after his death. But, I don't recall ever hearing anything about any of his other wives, while he was living. I really think that should be discussed in Gospel Doctrine, at least. (Not my decision, of course...I just wish it had been, and everything hadn't been quite so "faith promoting"). It doesn't hurt to give us things to think about (and to prepare us for criticisms from the outside). The only preparation I got for outside criticisms was to tell me that they were all lies. But, they're not all lies.

Erm.... Libs... I'm pretty sure this was discussed in seminary for me... we are going over D&C this year... and it was mentioned if I remember correctly =P. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was and I'm sure it was mentioned that polygamy went on in the Early (pre-Brighamite) church). It's probably a class-by-class basis.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Deborah]

The place to start is In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd M. Compton. (1) No, it is not supposition. (2) Many records exist that can shine light on "why it was done and what the thought processes were." The literature, antagonistic and mopologistic and fair/balanced, abounds. Other works exist about Joseph's plural marriages and polyandry, yet the place to begin is Compton.

And again it's supposition.

From MormonWiki:

Scholars have coined the term "polyandry" (Greek: poly=many, andros=men) to describe marriages in which one woman is married to more than one man.

Of all the aspects of Joseph Smith's marital theology, this is the most difficult area to understand, because very little primary evidence exists. As one scholar noted:

Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations.

This inconclusive evidence has been a boon, unsurprisingly, to critics, who can draw many lascivious conclusions from Joseph's actions. The faithful member may feel uneasy because he has no ready "alibi" for the polyandry material which the gleeful critic insists is a "smoking gun" for Joseph's base motives.

However, a close look at the evidence that does exist shows that the critics' confidence is premature and likely misplaced. More than anything else, one's attitude toward Joseph will affect how the fragmentary evidence is interpreted.

In my experience, nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history. This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors. To complicate the issue further, we understand little about how Joseph and his contemporaries saw these relationships. Mary Elizabeth Rollins seemed to recognize that later students of the period would not have the necessary information to understand her choices as a polyandrous wife: " could explain some things in regard to my living with [my first husband] after becoming the Wife of Another [i.e., Joseph], which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious—and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury."

Plural marriage was one means by which Joseph implemented the broader doctrine of sealing. Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole. "Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship," observed Richard Bushman, "but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities."[3] Alma Allred agrees with Todd Compton that "[m]arriage, sealing and adoption, in fact, were nearly interchangeable concepts,"[4] for Joseph's followers, but criticizes Compton because this principle is "much too important to be relegated to, or lost in a footnote" when discussing Joseph's plural marriages.[5]

polyandry

If people actually understood this principle "Ultimately, his intent seems to have been to reunite the human family into a bonded whole" why would they get upset about this principle.

[cksalmon]

And again it's supposition.

It's not. Have you read Compton's In Sacred Loneliness?

Better yet, have you read Compton's near-book-length response to the Anderson/Faulring and Bachman FARMS reviews of his book, titled Truth, Honesty, and Moderation in Mormon History?

There one will find a sustained defense of his historiographical methodology.

And I think it would go a long way toward disabusing one of the simplistic critique that "it's [mere] supposition."

[Jeff K.]

I can't speak to your "by and large: yes" response. I assume there's some sort of "qualia" involved there, to misuse the term. But, no, personally, I never avoid discussing difficult subjects of my [denomination's] past.

You seem to think that is a normative response. Why?

You seem to think that people react differently when speaking about a denomination rather than about themselves. I think when you hold your religion close to you, you also tend to personalize how you feel about it. Sometimes there are things that simply cannot be explained within the proper context, both about our past and about our denominations past. I have spoken with people of various religions and almost invariably there are "issues" which they aren't completely clear on, or which they do not entirely know how to explain in context during a short time of conversation. Avoidance is often a natural ouctome of such an event.

Now some might insist that they be told "now" and that they will decide context. A somewhat arrogant view. But this also creates the natural stance of avoidance.

[Jeff K.]

I think that all institutions such as churches, governments, corporations, etc. hide their history to some extent....or maybe not hide it, but at least manipulate it to place themselves in the best possible light, through the use of half-truths, avoidance, etc.

The difference with the case of the LDS church, IMO, is that it is not supposed to be like other institutions....it is supposed to be gods true, restored church on earth, the most true of all belief systems. So when it acts like all those other institutions regarding it's history, well then, it is hard to distinguish itself as something different, something better, or something truer.

You presuppose they do, when most of the evidence shows otherwise.

[Jeff K.]

That may be so, but I didn't grow up in the LDS Church. I was a convert. I think I kind of vaguely knew Joseph had other wives, but it was never discussed in any detail. Emma is the only one I heard about. Definitely, didn't know the ages of some of his wives or that he had been sealed to other men's wives, while their husbands were still living.

If I might. I converted in the 1970's and was well aware of the issue when I became a member. I thought it irrelevant given Charlamagne had several wives (simultaneously) of varying ages, with the Catholic church's consent.

[Libs]

If I might. I converted in the 1970's and was well aware of the issue when I became a member. I thought it irrelevant given Charlamagne had several wives (simultaneously) of varying ages, with the Catholic church's consent.

That's nice that you were aware of it, and that it didn't bother you. I converted in 2001 and I wasn't aware. I didn't really "investigate" church history. I read the Book of Mormon and gained a testimony of it (I thought). I did spend a year studying the Book of Mormon and other scriptures...talking with missionaries and other members of the church, before I made the decision.

The thing is, I learned about Joseph's marriages to young girls around the time Warren Jeffs was in the news and pictures of him with (literally) little girls sitting on his lap and kissing him, etc. I am not claiming that Joseph Smith was like him..but, the thought did occur to me. The possibility was extremely unappealing, to say the least. So, it did bother me...it bothered me a lot.

[TAO]

The thing is, I learned about Joseph's marriages to young girls around the time Warren Jeffs was in the news and pictures of him with (literally) little girls sitting on his lap and kissing him, etc. I am not claiming that Joseph Smith was like him..but, the thought did occur to me. The possibility was extremely unappealing, to say the least. So, it did bother me...it bothered me a lot.

My friend... you shouldn't let it bother you.. really =D ... in the least till you meet Joseph yourself. It is hard to judge a person who is not with us right now, and it is best to not assume how he treated his wives until we can see him in person.

And you shouldn't be bothered by the youngness of the wives, imo. Jesus's parents had a ginormous age difference. And yet, look at the great miracle that came from it, from a Heavenly Father who cared for us. Age didn't make a difference. Nor will it in the eternities - after all, we will all age till we are 100 years old, right? And your spirit could be eons older than mine, so age perspectively you could be 1000s of years older than I am.

Thus, time is relative, and age isn't so much important as ideals are =D. That's what we will have to talk to Joseph about, about why he did things the way he did. It will come clear in the Lord with time, I hope.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

[Hamba Tuhan]

So, it did bother me...it bothered me a lot.

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's the normal response, I should think. And you're in good company. The faithful, devout Latter-day Saints to whom plural marriage was first introduced overwhelmingly found the whole thing troubling, too. For many of them, though, it then became an opportunity to put prayer and personal revelation to the test. I find it striking that so very many of them went from being appalled to being at peace, often literally in a moment, as God answered their confused prayers on the subject. Like them, I've found that one of the most startling of spiritual experiences is to have God change my attitude for me, even when I've been convinced otherwise.

To share just one, this is Eliza Ann Whitney's personal account:

My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.

(I highly recommend the entire Ensign article, by the way.)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Every Church and everybody tries to hide embarrassing moments (history) in the organization or lives. It is a human defense trait. This has been the case since Cain.

[Mars]

To MelvinCJohnson

Can you stop with the 'mopologetic' drum you keep beating? I've seen like 4 of your posts now scattered across different threads that bring it up.

Please?

[Walden]

You presuppose they do, when most of the evidence shows otherwise.

What exactly am I "presupposing".....are you referring to my statement that "all institutions such as churches, governments, corporations, etc. hide their history to some extent....or maybe not hide it, but at least manipulate it to place themselves in the best possible light, through the use of half-truths, avoidance, etc."?

I would love to see your "evidence" that shows otherwise, if this is in fact what you are referring to. Do you suppose that the American history taught in classrooms across America went down exactly how it is written in the history textbooks, or do you think that maybe there are some dark parts of American history that are glossed over in these books? If you swallow whole the history of America as presented in government/tax payer supported classrooms, then I question your grasp of true American history.

Or what about corporate histories....are you aware that during WWII, "Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Jews, Slavs and other conquered peoples were used as slave labourers by German corporations such as Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben and even Fordwerke — a subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company." I bet you won't find that information in the literature published by Ford, or companies such as Bayer (aspirin), which was a subsidiary of IG Farben after Farben was dismanteled (IG Farben being the manufacturer of the gas used in the chambers where millions of jews were killed).

Regarding church histories, I have already spoken to LDS history.

Personally, I think that it is completely naive to wholly swallow the history of a country, corporation or church as presented by that country, corporation or church. Just as we individuals do when presenting our own "selfs" to others, we generally focus on that which is good, and downplay or distort that which is bad. It is human nature. Thus is the same with the LDS church.

I guess that I just expected more from god's one, true restored church.