Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[TAO]

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

Yeah XD. I know his real name too... but I don't reveal it on here, for privacy purposes and such. Besides, he doesn't know I'm talking of him currently XD. But I know he wouldn't mind =)... he has talked about it in public, sometimes.

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".

I understand - there are a lot of people out there who would do inappropriate things with that sort of power. What I'm asking though, is that you not assume Joseph did those inappropriate things. ;-)

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.

XD. Four hour meeting, anybody?

Thanks for the kind words, friend.

No prob =D. I hope things are going well on your end =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Walden]

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....

Personally, I think more than a deathbed confessional is needed, especially when it is uncorroborated by DNA evidence.

[Walden]

If you tell yourself something often enough you come to believe it.

Are you sure you're not talking about Fast and Testimony meeting here?

[Questing Beast]

I said: "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.

Do you not see how this is so much grasping at straws in order to deny the best interpretation of the evidence? You will apply a special (unequal) judgment to evidence if it suits you.

Patty Sessions was married to Joseph Smith. Other women did not deny - and in fact implied strongly - that their plural marriages to Joseph Smith were "for time" and "as a wife", meaning including sleeping together. So the Patty Sessions DEATHBED confession to her daughter Sylvia is not some aberrant fantasy of one woman. To imply that Patty Sessions had lusted after Joseph Smith her whole life, so that by the time of her death, she verily believed that she had had carnal knowledge of him, is worse than bad judgment; it is slander without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

When critics of the Church are accused of using these tactics, at least there is some evidence for a position of criticism. You have no evidence that Patty Sessions was deluded, deranged, or merely dishonest....

[Questing Beast]

...

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.

There are those who advocate that "we" stop trying so hard to mainstream the LDS faith, and admit that it is in fact a new and separate religion. Then there are those who ID as Christian above all; e.g. Grant H. Palmer, who concluded his book (An Insider's View of Mormon Origins) with the admonishment that "we" ought to emphasize Jesus Christ in our religion and get away from Joseph Smith and his "restoration". I was of that bent, and studied for many years in an attempt to believe Christianity within Mormonism; for I could not accept it literally without the "restoration".

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.

...

I had no trouble with the so-called embarrassing stuff. If it's true that's all that matters. It is discovery that the story is even worse than portrayed that catches me. I cannot accept a watered down version of history, ANY history: but when it's religious history then dissembling with the facts to any degree is utterly unjustified, imho.

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.

That's inescapably true. And the biggest questions are not even directly tied to Mormonism or any other religion: but rather, the most pertinent questions about our metaphysical existence transcend ALL religions. When I came to accept that as a fact, my religious identity started over from effectively nothing as far as recognized dogma goes....

[Deborah]

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

Do you not see how this is so much grasping at straws in order to deny the best interpretation of the evidence? You will apply a special (unequal) judgment to evidence if it suits you.

You said you didn't have a polite response. I gave you an example of one that doesn't make her a liar but which is a psychological possibility. I don't know or care if Joseph had a child by a woman he was married to. The DNA evidence however doesn't support it.

[Deborah]

Are you sure you're not talking about Fast and Testimony meeting here?

You might have a point if most people who bear their testimonies weren't scared to death to get up in front of people and talk. Not very many get up that often to make it a habit and therefore self-convincing. I do think that those who protest too much that the church isn't true have the same issue.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I understand, but I still don't think it was very helpful.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 May 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

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.

And that is your error. People who hold their religion close to them (which includes all definitions thereof) act in those terms.

In fact I said...

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.

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.

Denomination is a religion. You cannot honestly compare protestant groups which do not have a central authority with the Church of Jesus Christ, which does. It is a false comparison.

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'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.

Hardly. You had one part right, the actual story is more complex. However you also tend to overlook that most of those who do the complaining don't want the actual story, they want "their version" of it. This is usually the case in such matters. You can bring up questions that would lead their version to a different interpretation, but then someone says "oh see now you are hiding history", when in fact you are attempting to clarify it.

If something isn't sufficiently "unflattering" from one interpretation, then obviously it is being "hid". It is the same thing over and over again.

Quote

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.

People can spend years studying a historical event and never come to a clear cut solution. It need not be a "short" conversation.

[LeSellers]

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...

"Averages" are made up of a range of data points. The average age of marriage in the early XIX was about 19 or so, but that does not mean that a woman's marrying at age 14 was abnormal. The following ages average to 19¾: 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 31, 32. The average tells us almost nothing about the numbers themselves. In this case, the mode would be more useful.

Further, it varied from region to region, and although the New Englanders who were the majority of the early Saints were probably among those whose age at marriage was higher than the national average, these particular new Englanders were now frontiersmen.

Life on the frontier was harsher, and shorter than in the comfortable homes they'd left in New York and Pennsylvania (which, I know, are not technically "New England", but bear with me here, please). Marriage was more a matter of raising children in those days than it is today, and younger people do it better than the older. It made sense to take a younger wife.

Given these facts (that the marriage age included far more 14 year old women than the average suggests and that there is a difference between the families on the frontier and those in cities), the concept of what we might consider robbing the cradle in the XXI simply did not apply to the mid XIX.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

If a forty year old wants to marry a 18 year old I can't object on legal grounds, but I do wonder what they possibly could have in common. 20 years is a long time in maturity, just plain old life experience.

[Libs]

I understand, but I still don't think it was very helpful.

Thanks. No, it wasn't helpful.

[Libs]

Libs:

If a forty year old wants to marry a 18 year old I can't object on legal grounds, but I do wonder what they possibly could have in common. 20 years is a long time in maturity, just plain old life experience.

Exactly. I would wonder, as well. There is a discussion on race compatibility, on another thread, and I would think age compatibility would be a MUCH larger issue, especially with that big a gap.

[Libs]

"Averages" are made up of a range of data points. The average age of marriage in the early XIX was about 19 or so, but that does not mean that a woman's marrying at age 14 was abnormal. The following ages average to 19¾: 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 31, 32. The average tells us almost nothing about the numbers themselves. In this case, the mode would be more useful.

Further, it varied from region to region, and although the New Englanders who were the majority of the early Saints were probably among those whose age at marriage was higher than the national average, these particular new Englanders were now frontiersmen.

Life on the frontier was harsher, and shorter than in the comfortable homes they'd left in New York and Pennsylvania (which, I know, are not technically "New England", but bear with me here, please). Marriage was more a matter of raising children in those days than it is today, and younger people do it better than the older. It made sense to take a younger wife.

Given these facts (that the marriage age included far more 14 year old women than the average suggests and that there is a difference between the families on the frontier and those in cities), the concept of what we might consider robbing the cradle in the XXI simply did not apply to the mid XIX.

Lehi

Thanks, Lehi. I know things were different back then, and that does have to be taken into consideration, but as I was just saying, it's that huge age gap that (in any era) just doesn't seem right, y/k? Very difficult for me to just look past that.

[Calm]

it's that huge age gap that (in any era) just doesn't seem right, y/k? Very difficult for me to just look past that.

But in evaluating what is typical behaviour of an era, one needs to take into account how they felt about the age difference, not yourself. There are many, many things I think they did wrong back then, there are even many things I think my mother's generation got wrong (and a lot I'm thinking my son's generation got wrong....and my own). That has nothing to do with measuring what a particular culture viewed as abnormal behaviour though. If you are claiming the age difference is wrong, then you have to condemn most of the cultures of that time which allowed it but I am not sure what that means when criticizing JS's sealings. Are you suggesting that the age difference is so wrong that God should have told him that it was wrong so that he would go against his cultural norm in this area?

Do you like Jane Eyre? Rochester is 20 years older than Eyre. Do you think that is an okay age difference or not?

[blackstrap]

I am reminded of 2 statements , Joseph said that the people "shatter like glass" when they hear new doctrine that contradicts their traditions. He also declared that if he were to tell all he knew of heaven,that the people would rise up and kill him.

Some here are Shattered. Others would kill Joseph to save the world from his teachings.

Imagine the tut-tutting that went on with the Isaelites when they learned that Hosea had married a harlot and,gasp,had a child with her!!!

[Libs]

But in evaluating what is typical behaviour of an era, one needs to take into account how they felt about the age difference, not yourself. There are many, many things I think they did wrong back then, there are even many things I think my mother's generation got wrong (and a lot I'm thinking my son's generation got wrong....and my own). That has nothing to do with measuring what a particular culture viewed as abnormal behaviour though. If you are claiming the age difference is wrong, then you have to condemn most of the cultures of that time which allowed it but I am not sure what that means when criticizing JS's sealings. Are you suggesting that the age difference is so wrong that God should have told him that it was wrong so that he would go against his cultural norm in this area?

Do you like Jane Eyre? Rochester is 20 years older than Eyre. Do you think that is an okay age difference or not?

The age of the girls, probably, more than the age difference...made me wonder...

[Palerider]

But in evaluating what is typical behaviour of an era, one needs to take into account how they felt about the age difference, not yourself. There are many, many things I think they did wrong back then, there are even many things I think my mother's generation got wrong (and a lot I'm thinking my son's generation got wrong....and my own). That has nothing to do with measuring what a particular culture viewed as abnormal behaviour though. If you are claiming the age difference is wrong, then you have to condemn most of the cultures of that time which allowed it but I am not sure what that means when criticizing JS's sealings. Are you suggesting that the age difference is so wrong that God should have told him that it was wrong so that he would go against his cultural norm in this area?

Do you like Jane Eyre? Rochester is 20 years older than Eyre. Do you think that is an okay age difference or not?

I think it is a misrepresentation to characterize the occasional marrying of younger people as the norm in Joseph's time. It seems more of a way to rationalize questionable behavior. Why did Joseph have to take so many young wives?

Also as I recall, Jane Eyre married of her own volition and out of love for her intended, not because someone was holding her parent's guarantee of celestial inheritance over her head. Do you think Rochester could have convinced Jane to become his fourth or fifth wife.............speaking of "norms of the day"...........

[Palerider]

I am reminded of 2 statements , Joseph said that the people "shatter like glass" when they hear new doctrine that contradicts their traditions. He also declared that if he were to tell all he knew of heaven,that the people would rise up and kill him.

Some here are Shattered. Others would kill Joseph to save the world from his teachings.

Imagine the tut-tutting that went on with the Isaelites when they learned that Hosea had married a harlot and,gasp,had a child with her!!!

Joseph got it wrong. It wasn't the people who were shattering it was the image of himself he had created for them. They were beginning to see him as he really was.

Also there was no prohibition from the Lord regarding Hosea marrying a harlot, that restriction was only placed on Levites and Priests.

[Calm]

I think it is a misrepresentation to characterize the occaisional marrying of younger people as the norm in Joseph's time. It seems more of a way to rationalize questionable behavior. Why did Joseph have to take so many young wives?

Also as I recall, Jane Eyre married of her own volition and out of love for her intended, not because someone was holding her parent's guarantee of celestial inheritance over her head. Do you think Rochester could have convinced Jane to become his fourth or fifth wife.............speaking of "norms of the day"...........

I am not saying it was the "norm" but rather was considered within the range of normal behaviour as demonstrated by the study I referenced earlier. see here: http://www.fairwiki....ok/Age_of_wives

Young ages: "Even when the men in Joseph's age range (34–38 years) in the U.S. Census are extracted, Joseph still has a lower percentage of younger wives and more older wives than non-members half a decade later. "

Age difference: "When the age of husband is plotted against the age of each wife, it becomes clear that almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older (see Chart 12-3). "http://www.fairwiki.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

As to the second and third comments, I have been only addressing the age difference concern that Libs has been speaking of. I specifically said that left polygamy as an issue. And far as the guarantee of celestial inheritance, coercion in marriage was not an uncommon occurrence at the time, so much so that some feminists equated marriage with slavery. I am not saying that justifies any sort of coercion, simply that lets not condemn one form while giving others a pass.

[Palerider]

I am not saying it was the "norm" but rather was considered within the range of normal behaviour as demonstrated by the study I referenced earlier. see here: http://www.fairwiki....ok/Age_of_wives

Young ages: "Even when the men in Joseph's age range (34–38 years) in the U.S. Census are extracted, Joseph still has a lower percentage of younger wives and more older wives than non-members half a decade later. "

Age difference: "When the age of husband is plotted against the age of each wife, it becomes clear that almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older (see Chart 12-3). "http://www.fairwiki.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

As to the second and third comments, I have been only addressing the age difference concern that Libs has been speaking of. I specifically said that left polygamy as an issue. And far as the guarantee of celestial inheritance, coercion in marriage was not an uncommon occurrence at the time, so much so that some feminists equated marriage with slavery. I am not saying that justifies any sort of coercion, simply that lets not condemn one form while giving others a pass.

I see your point but it is the polygamy issue (for me) that makes the taking of young women unacceptable (or older for that matter). If one (an older man, say) takes a relatively young woman to wife, it can be seen somewhat as "robbing the craddle" which might be looked at askance by some, but is still viewed as a singular occurance of questionable judgement. However when there is a repetitive trend one has to question the true motivations of the thinking behind the decisions.

I actually had a great, great grandfather in the late 1800's who (in looking at the records) married an eighteen year old when he was in his late 30's. The record also showed his bride gave birth some 71/2 months after they were married. It raised our eyebrows a bit and we giggled over it, but thought, "Well at least he stood by her and did the right thing". I see that as quite different from a man seeking to convince women that God has commanded him to take plural wives, not a few significantly younger than himself, and that they should either obey or be held in judgement.

As to your remark on coersion, I agree completely. It should be called out no matter who is committing the wrong.

[TAO]

I see your point but it is the polygamy issue (for me) that makes the taking of young women unacceptable (or older for that matter). If one (an older man, say) takes a relatively young woman to wife, it can be seen somewhat as "robbing the craddle" which might be looked at askance by some, but is still viewed as a singular occurance of questionable judgement. However when there is a repetitive trend one has to question the true motivations of the thinking behind the decisions.

Why is it any more unacceptable than taking one, I ask?

It is as if there is this invisible line that has to be crossed - where is it, I ask? Where is the borderline acceptable, and where is the borderline unacceptable, and why is it so?

If you look at it logically, there really isn't any reason why two mairrages 20 years apart should be more accepted than a single 70 years apart. So why the big deal over this?

I think one is worried that it is more easy to take advantage of, no?

I see that as quite different from a man seeking to convince women that God has commanded him to take plural wives, not a few significantly younger than himself, and that they should either obey or be held in judgement.

Well what do you think your going to get if God commands, and you don't obey, my friend?

Do you think Moses would have done any better if he refused to go and tell Pharoh to let his people go?

There is a point, where we must realize that we are making an assumption that things didn't happen. This is one of them - one is assuming Joseph misbehaved because so many other men would in those circumstances. I do not think that is correct, if you know what I mean.

*sighs* This is getting complicated =/.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[blackstrap]

Palerider: The Lord ordered Hosea to take the harlot as wife.I wonder if he questioned that behavior.If one accepts that Joseph also was commanded(which you don't) ,and questioned the action, there doesn't seem like much difference.

[Palerider]

Why is it any more unacceptable than taking one, I ask?

The taking of one very young wife can be excused as a failure of judgement or possibly seen as a reflection of supply and demand in the sense that maybe there just weren't any other women available of a more suitable age during that time. It isn't desirable but it is understandable. The taking of multiple young women when one already has a number of wives shows an agenda.

It is as if there is this invisible line that has to be crossed - where is it, I ask? Where is the borderline acceptable, and where is the borderline unacceptable, and why is it so?

If you look at it logically, there really isn't any reason why two mairrages 20 years apart should be more accepted than a single 70 years apart. So why the big deal over this?

I think one is worried that it is more easy to take advantage of, no?

Well what do you think your going to get if God commands, and you don't obey, my friend?

And there you have the crux of the problem. One must believe that God actually did command, which I don't believe he did........

There is no biblical precedent. In ancient times God may have "winked at" or permitted the taking of plural wives but I don't see anywhere that he commanded the taking of plural wives against one's free agency and as a condition of salvation. LDS see plural marriage as a higher law. My reading sees it more as a part of ancient culture and tradition that God eventually weeded out.

Do you think Moses would have done any better if he refused to go and tell Pharoh to let his people go?

There is a point, where we must realize that we are making an assumption that things didn't happen. This is one of them - one is assuming Joseph misbehaved because so many other men would in those circumstances. I do not think that is correct, if you know what I mean.

*sighs* This is getting complicated =/.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Palerider]

Palerider: The Lord ordered Hosea to take the harlot as wife.I wonder if he questioned that behavior.If one accepts that Joseph also was commanded(which you don't) ,and questioned the action, there doesn't seem like much difference.

I stand corrected. You have found ONE biblical precedent where a prophet was commanded to take ONE wife. However I still don't see that as being the same as the prophet demanding that SHE marry him in order to secure salvation.

If Gomer had refused Hosea's offer of marriage I imagine he would have gone on to someone else. The Lord didn't specify her as the only prospect.

Neither did Joseph claim that the women he approached were specified as marriage partners BUT he did seem to indicate that it was their spiritual obligation to marry him and keep it secret. I see this as quite different than Hosea's marriage to Gomer. As a matter of fact the Lord wanted it to be very public because it was a sign to Israel of their sinful state.