Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[Libs]

TAO

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 have to say, up front, I don't think it's likely that would ever happen, but if it did happen, and I knew it was an angel from God, yes, I would do it.

I said, a few posts back, that I don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting "adults". My problem was with the age of some of the girls Joseph took to wife.

I don't really want to dwell on this, much longer. I don't consider myself a critic of the church (although, I did go through a phase of criticizing very harshly)..but, I am done with that and I don't want criticism to be my main focus.

The subject of this thread just reminded me that there were many things about church history that I didn't know...and wished I had. That's just my perspective. I don't think the church "hides" anything, but IMHO they could do better in the area of educating people about the "less than faith promoting stuff" that's floating around out there. Better than just telling us (as my Bishop did) that they are all a bunch of lies.

That's all I really wanted to say.

[Libs]

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.

Thanks, sometimesaint. Just wanted you to know I read this.

It was easier for me to think of him as a fallen prophet, in light of some of the things that I couldn't resolve, like the polygamy issues and the Book of Abraham...and still make sense of the good experiences I had with the Book of Mormon.

[Libs]

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

Thanks, Cal. I agree with you about polygamy, in general, and I do not have a problem with it.

You said, that the ages of Joseph's younger wives was in keeping with the times? But, I have seen statistics (from the first census, which was late 1800's) that indicated the average age for women to marry was much older than 14...if I am remembering correctly, it was 19 or 20. I realize that census was 50 years or so later (after Joseph's marriages), but it doesn't seem like average ages, for marriage, would have changed very much in 50 years...

[Libs]

I do know the average age for marriage has changed quite a bit, in the last 50 years (for economical reasons), but I don't think things were changing as quickly in the 1800's, as they did in the 1900's.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't think the church "hides" anything, but IMHO they could do better in the area of educating people about the "less than faith promoting stuff" that's floating around out there. Better than just telling us (as my Bishop did) that they are all a bunch of lies.

I'm sorry about your bishop. What he said was wrong...and very unhelpful.

[Questing Beast]

... 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....

And that's exactly how my "departure" from belief occurred: "literally in a moment". I was reading Compton's forward material before the actual chapters, where he introduces polyandry, and right away the entire concept blew away all previous efforts on my part to accept Judeo-Christianity. Mormonism, the "faith of my fathers", became instantly just like any other manmade religion. From that moment till now, I have been entertaining a much larger concept of "God" and Existence. I could no more return to Mormonism as "the only truth" than I could adopt any other singular religious dogma that asserts exclusivity for itself. "God" is not that small....

[Questing Beast]

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.

Patty Sessions, on her deathbed, told her daughter, Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, that Joseph Smith was her father. Regardless of any DNA evidence subsequently disproving this to be the actual fact, that Patty believed it is proof positive that Joseph Smith had had sexual intercourse with her. It only takes one case to show that Joseph Smith had sex with more than just Emma. The affidavits of Smith's plural wives add more evidence, but none of it as blatant and conclusive as the testimony of Sylvia....

[Palerider]

I appreciate that you understand, HT. I will read the article...thank you.

Hey Libs,

While you're at it you may want to read a little about the "Stockholm syndrome". I think on a somewhat milder level it does have some parallel principles with the early Mormon experience. Especially considering the stresses that the saints were experiencing.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Patty Sessions, on her deathbed, told her daughter, Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, that Joseph Smith was her father. Regardless of any DNA evidence subsequently disproving this to be the actual fact, that Patty believed it is proof positive that Joseph Smith had had sexual intercourse with her. It only takes one case to show that Joseph Smith had sex with more than just Emma. The affidavits of Smith's plural wives add more evidence, but none of it as blatant and conclusive as the testimony of Sylvia....

OR proof positive Sis. Sessions never anticipated DNA testing and wanted her daughter to believe in her "royal heritage".

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I know I'm older than dirt, but when I was in H.S. the age of consent to marry was 15, and 13 with parental consent. While not common women did get married at what we would consider a very young age in the 1830's and 40's. Particularly in the less populated regions of this country.

So JS being Sealed to younger, and older women, age wise just wasn't that big of a deal.

Here is a Link you might find interesting.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_cult.shtml#8

[Libs]

Libs:

I know I'm older than dirt, but when I was in H.S. the age of consent to marry was 15, and 13 with parental consent. While not common women did get married at what we would consider a very young age in the 1830's and 40's. Particularly in the less populated regions of this country.

So JS being Sealed to younger, and older women, age wise just wasn't that big of a deal.

Here is a Link you might find interesting.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_cult.shtml#8

I'm older than dirt, myself, and age of consent, in California, has been 18, ever since I can remember. I think one could marry, as young as 16, with parental consent. But, the key phrase is "while not common". I was talking about average age of marriage, not really whether or not it was allowed or legal to marry at 14 (which I think was the age of at least a couple of Joseph's wives). I remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. It was legal, but also quite the scandal, partly because he was so much older, but also because she was so young. That was not considered "normal".

I looked at the link, and I'm not sure what you wanted me to see there. I don't believe the LDS Church is a cult, and I don't have a problem with polygamy, per se. I knew that it had been practiced in the church, before I was baptized. I just didn't know the specifics.

[Calm]

Thanks, Cal. I agree with you about polygamy, in general, and I do not have a problem with it.

You said, that the ages of Joseph's younger wives was in keeping with the times? But, I have seen statistics (from the first census, which was late 1800's) that indicated the average age for women to marry was much older than 14...if I am remembering correctly, it was 19 or 20. I realize that census was 50 years or so later (after Joseph's marriages), but it doesn't seem like average ages, for marriage, would have changed very much in 50 years...

The problem with average ages----especially if one is dealing with a 50 year time period during which huge changes occurred among LDS (polygamy became practiced in the open and with a much higher percentage later, but then dropped again even before the feds got involved; they moved from a relatively compact society centered around a few cities to one that was spread out through a territory and then multiple states; there was a huge influx of immigrants from different cultures are a few things that pop into my head)----is that they say nothing about the range which is what is being talked about when we ask the question 'are the ages of these wives too low to be acceptable by their society'. Also if the average ages includes rural and urban areas throughout the US, one may be combining very disparate cultures. If one is going to use statistics, it is best to use the range of ages for the specific community involved to see if it was culturally acceptable or not (if one adds in the surrounding communities for comparison, it should be explained why this is appropriate as it would be inappropriate to compare, for example, what is acceptable among the marriage practices of the Amish to the outside nonAmish community because the Amish don't incorporate the standards of the nonAmish community into what is and isn't acceptable as significantly as say a group of settlers from the same cultural background who have migrated from the same area to the same general area even if they somehow managed to develop relatively independent communities). IOW, you need to make sure when comparing communities that they actually share the standards one is comparing if one is using that comparison to establish a specific instance is outside the norm.

My computer has been acting up so doing searches is very difficult for me right now (lots and lots of stalling and freezing up) so I am only going to be able to refer to right now to the FAIR wiki which has an article comparing the marriage age difference to the surrounding culture and nothing that Joseph did was outside the acceptable limits of that time period and location EXCEPT for the polygamy. And remember that average age may not even be the most common age, for example due to the limited number of age range below 20 (six years) as opposed to the age range above 20 (even if we cut it off at 50, that's still 5 times as big of a range), if the average age is 20 that means there are going to be a lot more marriages per each age below 20 than above 20 and the most common age of marriage might even be below 20 (could also beabove if it is not a bell curve, but jumps around a lot, not likely imo though). But let us assume that the average age is 20 or 21, that does not mean that marriage at 14 was considered inappropriate or even unusual (though it might have been, I can't remember the numbers).

***As a side note, the practice of having the much younger wife stay at home with her parents without consummating the marriage until later (something along the lines of a betrothal) was IIRC typical practice when polygamy was practiced openly after the move out west. Combining that with the writings of Helen Mar Kimball herself in how she described her life during that time period, it seems highly unlikely that at least in her case (sealed at the age of 14 to JS) that her relationship with JS was anything more than ceremonial....though the intent may have been to later become a functioning marriage, JS's death a year or so after the sealing took place made that impossible.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

I was in the South while in H.S.

I have few problems with a 18 year old getting married. But those have to do with the ability to financially support one another. Not chronological age per say.

It is true that public support against the young(under 18)has grown in the last decades, but such was not always the case, even here in the US.

Only one that I know of, and she went back to live with her parents. The average age was right in line with Joseph's age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

[Libs]

Libs:

I was in the South while in H.S.

I have few problems with a 18 year old getting married. But those have to do with the ability to financially support one another. Not chronological age per say.

It is true that public support against the young(under 18)has grown in the last decades, but such was not always the case, even here in the US.

Only one that I know of, and she went back to live with her parents. The average age was right in line with Joseph's age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wives_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Haha! I almost asked you, if you were living in the South, but decided that would be rude.

Wasn't Joseph in his 30's, when he started marrying polygamously?

I see two 14 year olds, and several 16-17 year olds.

[TAO]

TAO

I have to say, up front, I don't think it's likely that would ever happen, but if it did happen, and I knew it was an angel from God, yes, I would do it.

Yah, I'd have to agree, unlikely to every happen =). But if God calls, well, that is the way it will be.

I said, a few posts back, that I don't have a problem with polygamy between consenting "adults". My problem was with the age of some of the girls Joseph took to wife.

I need to introduce you to my friend brokenhourglass. He is 18, the girl he is in love with is 40 something. They both love each other. I'm not saying this is correct... but it really isn't all as 'scandulous' as it seems. Large age differences still happen today. I know it seems unnatural... and not exactly the most correct thing. But it really won't matter in the long run. We will all be the same age in heaven, all of us, no? ;-) The hardest thing, I think, would be the different levels of maturity of the two with a large age difference... that is what would be... so difficult. Social practices of those who are 14, and those who are 30, are different. That would be the area to be concerned with =).

I don't really want to dwell on this, much longer. I don't consider myself a critic of the church (although, I did go through a phase of criticizing very harshly)..but, I am done with that and I don't want criticism to be my main focus.

You aren't a critic libs, and anybody who calls you that is completely wrong. You are a fine person, my friend. =D. And there is nothing anybody can say to change that =).

The subject of this thread just reminded me that there were many things about church history that I didn't know...and wished I had. That's just my perspective. I don't think the church "hides" anything, but IMHO they could do better in the area of educating people about the "less than faith promoting stuff" that's floating around out there. Better than just telling us (as my Bishop did) that they are all a bunch of lies.

That's all I really wanted to say.

I agree... more openness would be a good thing. It will take time, but I think it will happen. People in my ward are comfortable talking about the priesthood and Africans... hopefully they will be comfortable talking about this as well, I would hope. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Questing Beast]

OR proof positive Sis. Sessions never anticipated DNA testing and wanted her daughter to believe in her "royal heritage".

Saying Sister Sessions was a liar, on her deathbed, even. I don't have a polite response to that....

[Deborah]

Saying Sister Sessions was a liar, on her deathbed, even. I don't have a polite response to that....

I do. She came to believe it whether it was true or not. If you tell yourself something often enough you come to believe it.

[cksalmon]

You seem to think that people react differently when speaking about a denomination rather than about themselves.

If I understand what you're thinking, I think I do think that.

I think when you hold your religion close to you, you also tend to personalize how you feel about it.

I think you've highlighted an important distinction here: the distinction between a "denomination" and a "religion." I think we'd agree that Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity in the sense that, for example, Methodists and Southern Baptists and Presbyterians are considered to be denominations of Protestant Christianity. At the very least, Mormonism didn't begin with that sort of self-understanding. Rather, Mormonism began as a separate religion--and not just a separate religion, but according to the LDS understanding, the true and pure Christian religion, restored and stripped of sectarian clutter.

In light of that fact, I would suggest that the faithful LDS believer has a tougher row to hoe, so to speak, with regard to difficulties in his religion's past than someone who belongs to a denomination of, say, Protestant Christianity like myself. Here's what I mean. Someone might lay this charge at the feet of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC): "The SBC was founded to protect the institution of slavery." Well, that's a significant charge. The actual story is more complex than that and, on the most generous reading of the history, seems to revolve around the lack of missionary appointments of Southern slaveholders by the Triennial Convention. But, it's certainly true enough that it should elicit serious attention and concern.

(I remember my chagrin when I stumbled upon a 19th C Southern Baptist book in the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary library that defended the institution of slavery on the basis of scripture.)

But, if someone were to attack the SBC for this bit of its history, I would feel no particular need to defend it, since I agree in my soul that American chattel slavery (especially in the South) was an abomination before God. My primary religious identity is that of a Christian, not a Southern Baptist, and certainly not a North American "Evangelical"--a term so laden with doctrinal confusion that it is practically meaningless at this point in history.

Since my primary religious identification is as a Christian, not a Southern Baptist, I don't feel particularly put upon to admit to the failings of past Southern Baptists.

I'd imagine that the case is different for Mormons. I'd suppose that the Mormon's primary religious identification is as a Latter-day Saint. And, it doesn't seem to me that a faithful Latter-day Saint could easily look at historical LDS sore spots and say, "Yes, my Mormon religious ancestors were definitely wrong about that. It's embarrasing, but there it is." Though, to be sure, I've seen those who claim to be faithful LDS say exactly that sort of thing. But, even less so, I'd imagine, could he or she say, "Thing X that Joseph Smith did was morally repugnant. I reject it and would counsel against it." Because at that point, one is not questioning just any religious forebearer, but one who claimed to be God's divinely-appointed restorer of the only true religion. Questioning Mormonism is, in that sense, questioning your very religious identity.

Perhaps that is why some Mormons feel the temptation to "hide" unflattering aspects of Mormon history. Since Mormonism claims to be the highest and purest instantiation of pure Christianity, and since it's a relative newcomer on the historical scene, there's bound to be a lot of pressure to always shine more brightly than the rest.

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.

In a time of short conversation between two individuals? Okay. I didn't think that was the context of this particular thread, but I may have missed the boat.

[Libs]

I'm sorry about your bishop. What he said was wrong...and very unhelpful.

Thanks, Hamba. I think he was just trying to protect us. He's a good man and I'm really not upset with him, at all.

[Libs]

Yah, I'd have to agree, unlikely to every happen =). But if God calls, well, that is the way it will be.

I need to introduce you to my friend brokenhourglass. He is 18, the girl he is in love with is 40 something. They both love each other. I'm not saying this is correct... but it really isn't all as 'scandulous' as it seems. Large age differences still happen today. I know it seems unnatural... and not exactly the most correct thing. But it really won't matter in the long run. We will all be the same age in heaven, all of us, no? ;-) The hardest thing, I think, would be the different levels of maturity of the two with a large age difference... that is what would be... so difficult. Social practices of those who are 14, and those who are 30, are different. That would be the area to be concerned with =).

You aren't a critic libs, and anybody who calls you that is completely wrong. You are a fine person, my friend. =D. And there is nothing anybody can say to change that =).

I agree... more openness would be a good thing. It will take time, but I think it will happen. People in my ward are comfortable talking about the priesthood and Africans... hopefully they will be comfortable talking about this as well, I would hope. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

You have a friend named "brokenhourglass"? Is that an interenet name? I hope.

Yes, there are age differences in a lot of relationships, which I don't bat an eye at, if the relationship is between adults. Again, it's the young age of the girls that had me kind of freaking out...and not being able to reconcile that with "prophet".

More openness would be a good thing. OTOH, LDS meetings are already long, so I don't know where they're going to fit in all of this history.

Thanks for the kind words, friend.

[Bernard Gui]

My primary religious identity is that of a Christian, not a Southern Baptist, and certainly not a North American "Evangelical"--a term so laden with doctrinal confusion that it is practically meaningless at this point in history.

Since my primary religious identification is as a Christian, not a Southern Baptist, I don't feel particularly put upon to admit to the failings of past Southern Baptists.

Isn't this just taking the easy way out? It seems too facile to say, "X denomination did

such-and-such or believes such and such, or so and so did something, which may not be true or moral, but it's not a big deal because I am first a Christian and second an X. I can always be a Y." Doesn't this lead to denomination shopping?

Bernard

[Libs]

I don't think "denomination shopping" is a bad thing, if you are genuinely trying to find the truth. It's bad, I guess, if you just want to find something that fits easily with your lifestyle, but not bad to examine various beliefs and throw them out, if you find them lacking in credibility.

[cksalmon]

Isn't this just taking the easy way out?

I don't think so.

It seems too facile to say, "X denomination did such-and-such or believes such and such, which may not be true or moral, but it's not a big deal because I am first a Christian and second an X.

Here's where it seems you're missing my point, Bernard: "it's not a big deal because...."

Rather, I think it's a huge deal, actually. It's such a huge deal, in fact, that in the instance I raised, I am compelled to say (particularly with regard to the book I mentioned): "It is morally repugnant. I reject it and would counsel against it."

I can always be a Y." Doesn't this lead to denomination shopping?

The salient difference I would identify here is that I am able to make moral judgments that cut across the vein; yes, even across denominational lines if necessary. Since (facilely, if you're correct) my first allegiance is to Christianity rather than to the SBC. But, I reject your implication that my primary commitment to Christianity vis-a-vis the SBC is "facile."

This goes to my point in the post you're responding to, Bernard: that is, that the acceptable moral judgments of a faithful Latter-day Saint with regard to troublesome LDS history may be circumscribed by his primary religious identity. Nothing wrong with that in principle, of course. But there it is.

Best.

cks

[Bernard Gui]

I don't think "denomination shopping" is a bad thing, if you are genuinely trying to find the truth. It's bad, I guess, if you just want to find something that fits easily with your lifestyle, but not bad to examine various beliefs and throw them out, if you find them lacking in credibility.

How do you know when you find the right one? Doesn't that imply the existence of one true church?

Or does that even matter?

Bernard

[Libs]

How do you know when you find the right one? Doesn't that imply the existence of one true church?

Or does that even matter?

Bernard

I think, generally speaking and within reason, what church you belong to matters very little. If you are a Christian, what matters is that you put your faith in Christ and follow him. That means slightly different things, to different Christians (thus, the church shopping). But, I don't think you have to attend church at all to be a true Christian (even though I do think it is very good for us to have that structure in our lives)...but, not a necessity.