Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[MelvinCJohnson]

I could never be moved out of the Restoration Movement as my testimony is of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon, not history, and not of the life or all things ever spoken by Joseph Smith. Even if conclusive evidence of Joseph's polygamy were to come forward it would merely steer me towards the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or the Church of Jesus Christ, but NEVER to denying my testimony of Jesus or the Book of Mormon. That would be foolishness.

Joseph was a polygamist who had sexual relations with several women, some of them quite young, who were not his legal wives. The context of Joseph's polygamy is factual, and no doubt about the physicality of it exists.

I have a friend who is true blue LDS with a poor opinion of Joseph, whom she considers a fallen prophet, but does have a solid testimony of the BoM. If that were to crumble,she would leave Mormonism and the Restoration far behind her.

[MosesStone1980]

Joseph was a polygamist who had sexual relations with several women, some of them quite young, who were not his legal wives. The context of Joseph's polygamy is factual, and no doubt about the physicality of it exists.

I have a friend who is true blue LDS with a poor opinion of Joseph, whom she considers a fallen prophet, but does have a solid testimony of the BoM. If that were to crumble,she would leave Mormonism and the Restoration far behind her.

Setting another unremarkable precedent?

Maybe I'm not catching the semantic behind your final sentence?

[Jeff K.]

Yes, again, thank you for helping me make my point. Yes, everyone has an agenda....you, me, the government, corporations, religions, etc.

We go to great lengths sometimes to cover our "warts" and display our shiny, pretty selves.

My point is that the LDS church has an agenda. This agenda includes (but is not limited to) hiding their warts and displaying their shiny, pretty self. Thus, they are like everyone else, and therefore, participate in the art of deception, at least on some level (by either ignoring, downplaying, etc. the true weakenesses of that self, just as you and I and every other entity do). I just expect more from gods church, that's all.

That is the point I am trying to make.

Of course the LDS has an agenda. You see it in the three main missions of the church.

Again, how dare they have an agenda!

I have found the church significantly more honest about its past than most other organizations, and significantly more willing to discuss it. You just don't like the fact the church doesn't fall on its sword for you because that is the agenda you have for the church. My advice, get over yourself first before you complain about the church.

You are so busy looking for a spot on white satin that you can't seem to notice that your hands are significantly dirtier.

PS - just a sidenote, but judging from your evaluation of the political climate surrounding textbooks and US history (which I am fairly aware of being married to a vice principal of a public school), I would assume that you and I have very different opinions on The People's History of the United States, which I found to be brilliant (though I ackowledge not entirely accurate....again, clouded by an agenda; imagine that).

Apparently you two don't talk much or she is misinformed. I will leave it to you to figure out.

As to Zinn, I met him once at a lecture. Bombastic to the point of making McConkie seem like a quiet murmuring. Most scholars dismiss him, though his writing is quick and popular, it is also light and much more agenda driven than most. It is one reason he isn't used much, even in liberal districts like the one I taught in. His works are too easily criticized for their sloppiness. He avoids the intricacies in history and does little more than switch white hats and black hats around. I don't necessarily call that history. I can see how the times in the 1970's would give birth to Zinn, since much of the history was indeed sanitized. But he doesn't hold up well beyond the brief reactionary period he lived in.

You may still be in that mode, but I prefer something more thoughtful. If you had read Rough Stone Rolling (a book I admire very much) you would understand my piont quite clearly.

[Libs]

I have a friend who is true blue LDS with a poor opinion of Joseph, whom she considers a fallen prophet, but does have a solid testimony of the BoM. If that were to crumble,she would leave Mormonism and the Restoration far behind her.

Interesting, because I had considered that possibility, myself, in trying to explain why my testimony of the Book of Mormon still felt "valid", even though my view of Joseph had deteriorated. That is a possibility, IMO.

[MosesStone1980]

Interesting, because I had considered that possibility, myself, in trying to explain why my testimony of the Book of Mormon still felt "valid", even though my view of Joseph had deteriorated. That is a possibility, IMO.

This clears up my previous misunderstanding, thanks Libs.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

JS was like any other man in that he sinned, and needed to repent. But he was not a fallen prophet. He not only translated the BoM, but gave additional modern Scripture. He through Jesus the Christ Restored the Church of Jesus the Christ, or properly called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Libs]

I can see how the Warren Jeffs issue would definately color your view of polygamy. Contextually you might want to consider how different polygamy was in Utah versus marriage in the US. Utah was the second state (by a couple of months) to offer women the franchise. Indeed womean also had more in the way of property rights than the rest of the nation (back east, if you were a woman of means, upon marriage they would all fall under control of your husband. You could not divorce unless your husband allowed you to). One reason divorce tended to me prevalent in Utah was the acknowledgement that women can choose in marriage and divorce.

Now when I first knew of polygamy, I was not aware of the ancilliary information regarding structure or voting, or divorce. I did however have the spirit of a testimony and was guided with patience to learn and become a member. Later as I learned the additional information, I confirmed that the spirit guided me down the right path.

Sometimes we just have to wait for the answer.

Thanks for the response, Jeff.

I've heard about the history of Utah women and how they had the vote (I think while Utah was still a territory?), while women in the States were still fighting for it. No doubt, there was a lot of good going on there, plus I know that many polygamous women really did choose and want to be in those relationships. But, there were also women, in those relationships, who suffered and did not really want to be there. Like any other institution, there was both good and bad about it.

I never got a confirmation that it was from God. Truly, polygamy, as an institution, doesn't bother me in the least, if grown men and women are actually choosing it. I just didn't "feel" that's what was happening with many of the young girls who were taken in marriage by Joseph. A lot of what I read "felt like" coercion. I couldn't get past that.

[Libs]

Double Post Deleted.

[MosesStone1980]

Libs:

JS was like any other man in that he sinned, and needed to repent. But he was not a fallen prophet. He not only translated the BoM, but gave additional modern Scripture. He through Jesus the Christ Restored the Church of Jesus the Christ, or properly called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, the quote used ad naseum "I never told you I was perfect.." seems to be consistently forgotten in all the fanfare surrounding the Prophet.

[Jeff K.]

I am not big on the apothesis of Joseph Smith either (even as it is a part of our doctrine for all), I prefer people "wait" before they deify the man.

[thesometimesaint]

MosesStone1980:

There was only one perfect person and JS wasn't him. But then I don't demand my prophets to be perfect. I only ask them of them to tell me what God wants him to.

There seems to have been a great deal of fanfare around all the Prophets including those of the Old and New Testament.

[Walden]

You are so busy looking for a spot on white satin that you can't seem to notice that your hands are significantly dirtier.

I am the first to acknowledge my "dirty hands".....the difference being that I do not proclaim to be "god's one, true" anything. I apologize in advance for thinking that god's one true church should be held to a higher standard.

If you can't acknowledge that the church has participated in hiding, obscuring, manipulating, muddling or, at the very least avoiding, it's past when it comes to unsavory facts, then we will have to just agree to disagree. In the very least, I would think any rational person would have to at the least acknowledge that some lengths have been taken by the LDS church to avoid unsavory history. Otherwise one must acknowledge that the LDS church has been completely forthcoming with it's sometime's messy history, and that argument would be just to easy to dismantle.

And if one does not consider this avoidance method as being just a little decepetive, then one has clearly never tried it with one's wife/husband. If I refuse to talk with my wife about an unsavory nugget from my past that is related to the person that I am, am I not practicing a form of deceit, only if it is just a little? And if deceit is of the devil, as believers must acknowledge, then it cannot be of christ. Thus, if god's church practices just a little deciet, even at the miniscule level of avoidance (not calling it outright lies), then is it truly of god? How does one have it both ways?

[Walden]

Joseph was a polygamist who had sexual relations with several women, some of them quite young, who were not his legal wives. The context of Joseph's polygamy is factual, and no doubt about the physicality of it exists.

I have a friend who is true blue LDS with a poor opinion of Joseph, whom she considers a fallen prophet, but does have a solid testimony of the BoM. If that were to crumble,she would leave Mormonism and the Restoration far behind her.

MelvinCJohnson, I know that you are attempting to assist the critics cause on this thread, but your claims that there is physical evidence of Joseph's sexual relations (unproven by objective evidence) with his numerous wives does nothing but make the apologists immediately discredit you. I am a critic myself, yet I have never seen any substantiated evidence that Joseph had intercourse with anyone other than Emma.

Our attempts to get at truth should not be based upon hearsay, innuendo or baseless, unprovable accusations presented as fact, whether it be by a critic or an apologist.

And if you do have objective or factual evidence that Joseph had intercourse with a wife than Emma, there are many here who would love to hear it, I'm sure.

[Jeff K.]

No but you do proclaim the right to criticize something more even handed than you have been, which speaks to volumes of hypocrisy. No organization is perfect, but it seems your vision is so warped by your own agenda that you have abrogated the right to criticize at all. In any way that you can harm, demean or make the church less, you will seek it out. That is what makes your hands grubby little things.

Again, clean your own house before you cast aspersions elsewhere. I know that in your filtered vision, if it isn't negative it must be questionable, but really, get over yourself enough to know and appreciate the responsibility that imperfect men and women have been given. I doubt you judge yourself as harshly as you seem to judge the church. Your inconsistency makes your posts suspect.

Generally people who seek to know (rather than criticize from their pre-established little rameumptons of pseudo history), have opened ended questions that welcome nuance rather than judgemental attacks in which they "expected more" from the church. Thank heaven we haven't come to expect more from you.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

We are the one true and living Church on the face of the earth. But that hardly means that everything any member has ever done meets the demands of perfection. We are all trying to become Saints. Sorry if we don't live up to your expectations. Or as a wise man once told me. Yes bad things happened, now what are you going to do with the rest of your life.

[Mars]

If you can't acknowledge that the church has participated in...

hiding,

No. The Church has published the Joseph Smith papers, History of the Church, collected early journals of early saints, ran newspapers such as the Times and Seasons, and so forth that serve as the source of many of the salacious factoids.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Are there solely critical sources that 'scoop' the Church on a certain story? I am honestly not aware of any.

obscuring,

I'll let you provide evidence of this, I haven't seen it.

manipulating, muddling

Ditto my answer above.

or, at the very least avoiding,

Yeah, I can see this one.

Avoiding it where, though? By the laid-off banker guy up the street who teaches Gospel Doctrine, or in that the Church doesn't retain on employment full time lecturers, scholars, and historians that are in each branch of Church membership to professionally handle these things at an agreed upon time outside of the normal 3-hour block wherein we're supposed to be learning the doctrines of salvation?

I understand the let-down on the part of the member, and I understand why they would feel that the Church is being duplicitous. But I think it's the reaction that really counts. If you focus on the negative conclusions, the hiding on the part of the Church, and you let that give fruit to a distrust of the Church, then that is drastically different from reminding yourself of your spiritual experiences that are the reason why you'd even care about a guy named Joseph Smith anyway, and trust that those came from God and then get to the bottom of the criticism. I encourage the latter, but not the former.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Joseph was a polygamist who had sexual relations with several women, some of them quite young, who were not his legal wives. The context of Joseph's polygamy is factual, and no doubt about the physicality of it exists.

...

I respectfully disagree with your opinion for the reasons mentioned in the link in my signature.

[Calm]

MelvinCJohnson, I know that you are attempting to assist the critics cause on this thread, but your claims that there is physical evidence of Joseph's sexual relations (unproven by objective evidence) with his numerous wives does nothing but make the apologists immediately discredit you. I am a critic myself, yet I have never seen any substantiated evidence that Joseph had intercourse with anyone other than Emma.

Our attempts to get at truth should not be based upon hearsay, innuendo or baseless, unprovable accusations presented as fact, whether it be by a critic or an apologist.

And if you do have objective or factual evidence that Joseph had intercourse with a wife than Emma, there are many here who would love to hear it, I'm sure.

Thank you, Walden for speaking up on this.

[bookofmormontruth]

MelvinCJohnson, I know that you are attempting to assist the critics cause on this thread, but your claims that there is physical evidence of Joseph's sexual relations (unproven by objective evidence) with his numerous wives does nothing but make the apologists immediately discredit you. I am a critic myself, yet I have never seen any substantiated evidence that Joseph had intercourse with anyone other than Emma.

Our attempts to get at truth should not be based upon hearsay, innuendo or baseless, unprovable accusations presented as fact, whether it be by a critic or an apologist.

And if you do have objective or factual evidence that Joseph had intercourse with a wife than Emma, there are many here who would love to hear it, I'm sure.

Respect.

[Calm]

I just didn't "feel" that's what was happening with many of the young girls who were taken in marriage by Joseph. A lot of what I read "felt like" coercion. I couldn't get past that.

There has been a study done comparing the ages and difference in ages of the wives of JS, it was consistent with the time period. And considering how many of the activists of the age compared slavery and marriage, I would say that "coercion" was unfortunately not an uncommon reason for women to get married during that time period as well. The only thing of real difference, imo, is the polygamy. And I don't have any problem with something thinking that was inappropriate if they haven't received any spiritual confirmation that it was, certainly those who first practiced it in the early days of the LDS faith felt the same way and from what I've read most were only willing to act on it after having receiving personal revelation of the fact. I don't think God would hold us to a different standard then them. I also believe it is important to study the effects of polygamy on the culture and the women and children of that time, differentiating between the overall harsh conditions imposed by outside conditions (including governmental influence and actions), the same environmental struggles that went on for monogamous famillies as well as polygamous and the unique problems created by polygamous families. We need to be sure that our criticism of polygamy is based on an actual problem resulting from polygamy and not something else. For example Todd Comptom using several references to emphasize the harshness of the polygamy experience, but he neglects the fact that everyone was suffering the same due to the harsh environment. It's easy to make that jump, but if we want to be fair, I think it's worth it to take the extra time and trouble to place LDS polygamy in its proper context....which is not the Warren Jeffs' FLDS style that exists today (and this style needs to be examined in its total context as well, separating out abuses of the system from the system itself).

As a side note, I also find it rather amazing when someone is accepting of the necessities that lead to multiple extended family structures of today that are a result of serial marriage and divorce (not saying this is you, Libs) but condemning of polygamy where I see the problems no more difficult from what I've seen in every day life among my friends and family when it comes to making those type of family relationships work (I've seen much evidence of financial stress, jealousy about time spent with the different spouses and children, etc. among the blended family phenomena). See here for a summary of typical issues blended families face: http://www.stepinstitute.ca/stepfamily_dragons.php

[Hamba Tuhan]

No, of course the church has an agenda, and I do believe part of that is to "teach and encourage correct behavour." I just believed, naively at one time, that it also had a obligation to be honest as well.

So, if the Church's agenda is specifically to teach and encourage correct behaviour, how is it dishonest if it chooses to focus on and utilise historical examples which will further that agenda? This is not a denial that literally an infinite set of other points could be raised; it is, rather, the very essence of communication a la José Ortega y Gasset.

I just expect more from gods church, that's all.

You keep saying this, as though some sort of non-selective communication could actually exist. It doesn't. The 'more' you should be expecting from God's church is actually contained in the agenda: to invite all people everywhere to come to Christ...and to atually have the power which that invitation suggests.

[Mike Richards]

So, if the Church's agenda is specifically to teach and encourage correct behaviour, how is it dishonest if it chooses to focus on and utilise historical examples which will further that agenda? This is not a denial that literally an infinite set of other points could be raised; it is, rather, the very essence of communication a la José Ortega y Gasset.

I think something worth keeping in mind here, too, is that "an agenda" is typically viewed as a bad thing because it is often used to convey the more precise idea of "a hidden agenda". Unless the church's agenda is to do something other than bring people to Christ, I don't think it's hidden.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Unless the church's agenda is to do something other than bring people to Christ, I don't think it's hidden.

Precisely. The problem with people like Walden is that, because they've first rejected the purpose of the Church, they don't want it to clearly communicate its agenda, preferring instead if it would muddle its message: 'Jesus is the Christ, and this is His kingdom, filled with promised blessings...but here are 101 reasons why you may want to disregard what we just said.' If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly is the Kingdom of God on Earth, established by Jesus Christ Himself and holding valid priesthood authority and the keys of revelation, then it would be the most dishonest thing in the world to miscommunicate that message.

I'm trying to imagine the Apostle Peter, boldly preaching faith in Jesus Christ, and then adding, 'But hey, you may not want to take my word for it. After all, I once denied knowing Christ three times out of fear, I tried to discourge Him from going through with the Atonement, and I even cut off a guard's ear with a sword in an act of violent passion, so what do I know?'

[TAO]

Thanks, Tao. You make some good points about "spiritual age" and time being relative. But, my concern was that Joseph was a false prophet (as I believe Warren Jeffs is). Would we (could we) say the same thing about him? That the age of his wives doesn't really make a difference? I don't think so.

Yes, I could say the same thing about him.

That isn't what makes him wrong, I think.

What is wrong, I think, is that he is not a prophet. And also, so did God command us to stop practicing polygamy, so we shall, so we shall.

That is why I disagree with what he does.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

[TAO]

Thanks for the response, Jeff.

I've heard about the history of Utah women and how they had the vote (I think while Utah was still a territory?), while women in the States were still fighting for it. No doubt, there was a lot of good going on there, plus I know that many polygamous women really did choose and want to be in those relationships. But, there were also women, in those relationships, who suffered and did not really want to be there. Like any other institution, there was both good and bad about it.

I never got a confirmation that it was from God. Truly, polygamy, as an institution, doesn't bother me in the least, if grown men and women are actually choosing it. I just didn't "feel" that's what was happening with many of the young girls who were taken in marriage by Joseph. A lot of what I read "felt like" coercion. I couldn't get past that.

Libs... I have a question. What would you do, if God sent an angel to you, to tell you to participate in this practice? ...Would you do it?

I think it would be really hard already... being asked to do something so taboo... and then being asked to talk to others about it. Joseph probably made a few mistakes, I agree. But coercion... I think that may have been one of the few ways to actually get it done.

What I mean is... do you fault him for resorting to coercion, when people would already be hesitant to do such anyways? ...How would he do what God asked him, if that happened if they refused?

Joseph was far from perfect... but I think you ought to judge the man from comments he made himself, rather than worry on those descriptions given by other people. If it helps, pray about it to the Lord... and know you will have the opportunity to know the answer of why it was all necessary on the other side, and why it happened that way. I do think I know some of the reasons behind polygamy... but I think there will be more behind it behind the veil... more truth, and more reason. I won't press God on it, but I'll be patient and wait for his council and commands concerning why things happened the way they did, when he gives them to me. I know he has told me not to worry about it for now, if that helps =).

I also hoped to be able to post part of this D&C verse... to help you see why I am at peace with the subject.

D&C 132:63

...for they are given unto him to ^amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be ^bglorified.

Are they good reasons... if the Lord asked so, with our exaltation in mind... for the necessity of justice? To multiply and replenish the earth... to fufill the promise given by the Father... for their exaltation... and so that the work of Father may be glorified. Would these not be... just... reasons?

Gentle Wishes,

TAO