Internet And Church History

[freedom_of_religion]

I've seen a growing trend (at least in my ward) and was wondering if this is happening all over. There have been a number of members (life long members) in my ward that have left the church because of information they've read on the INTERNET. Most of the reasons I have heard were because of the history of the church that they say has been "hidden" from the general membership. Their testimony of Joseph Smith as well as other early leaders has crumbled to nothing. One family left because of this reason and that of the church's stand on homosexuality. They also felt that they just would never be "good enough" to be members of the church. I'd like to say that I just never paid much attention to it, but can't say that I believe that. I began to notice that our Elder's Quorum has shrunk considerably and I started asking questions. My wife is the Relief Society Secretary and has heard many of the stories. On a personal note, she too has been reading the same things. She told me just a couple of weeks ago that she didn't know if she could believe in Joseph Smith because A. He was a polygamist, B. He was a Treasure Seeker and C. A host of other accusations. The one thing that I find in common with all of these instances is the Internet and the information that is widely available. Does anyone else notice this trend or is it just me? If so, why won't the church come out and defend the accusations? Or at least clarify any misunderstandings?

[Duncan]

I think it is hard to say what members know and where they know it from

[sunstoned]

I'm not sure what the role the internet has played in conversion rate or membership retention. However, I see the increased availability of information as a good thing for everyone, including the church.

Edited July 31, 2011 by sunstoned

[altersteve]

The one thing I'm still trying to figure out is why our critics insist that the Church is trying to "hide" its history. The Church does nothing of the sort (although I honestly think that anything about LDS history can be faith-promoting if taught correctly). I am also amazed at how pathetic the critics' logic and scholarship are. I mean, if you want to criticize the Church, at least do it right.

Nevertheless, there is nothing to fear. The Church of Jesus Christ is still standing stronger than ever and that will never change, no matter how many times our critics may insist otherwise.

Edited July 31, 2011 by altersteve

[Palerider]

I've seen a growing trend (at least in my ward) and was wondering if this is happening all over. There have been a number of members (life long members) in my ward that have left the church because of information they've read on the INTERNET. Most of the reasons I have heard were because of the history of the church that they say has been "hidden" from the general membership. Their testimony of Joseph Smith as well as other early leaders has crumbled to nothing. One family left because of this reason and that of the church's stand on homosexuality. They also felt that they just would never be "good enough" to be members of the church. I'd like to say that I just never paid much attention to it, but can't say that I believe that. I began to notice that our Elder's Quorum has shrunk considerably and I started asking questions. My wife is the Relief Society Secretary and has heard many of the stories. On a personal note, she too has been reading the same things. She told me just a couple of weeks ago that she didn't know if she could believe in Joseph Smith because A. He was a polygamist, B. He was a Treasure Seeker and C. A host of other accusations. The one thing that I find in common with all of these instances is the Internet and the information that is widely available. Does anyone else notice this trend or is it just me? If so, why won't the church come out and defend the accusations? Or at least clarify any misunderstandings?

That's pretty much the reason I left the church. Does the church "hide" it's true history? Not exactly.........but it certainly doesn't have a "full disclosure" clause in it's approach to teaching it's history either. It's better described as a matter of avoidance. If we don't talk about it maybe it will go away.

"Clarifying any misunderstandings" is like opening a can of worms. The church really doesn't want to "go there" especially in an open forum. They want to control the conversation by having a member discuss such things in private with their Bishop.

Just imagine being in a Sunday School class where someone says, "Can you tell me more about Joseph being a treasure seeker?" and the sister down the row says, "whhaaat......?"

Edited July 31, 2011 by Palerider

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I joined the Church in part because of anti-Mormon materials on the Temple ordinances I read online, which actually functioned as a sort of free advertising. If these Jack Chick crazies were apoplectic over the LDS, then obviously the LDS were doing something right! *grin* However, I did not join until long after I had read - among many other things - Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, Teryl Givens' By The Hand of Mormon, a good deal of Nibley's oeuvre, Richard R. Hopkins' How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God, Edwin Hatch's Hibbert Lectures on The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, Orson Scott Card's numerous essays on the church in his Vigor samizdat newletter, his collection Storyteller in Zion, and his books such as the Alvin Maker series (a loosely allegorical fantasy retelling of Joseph Smith in which "treasure digging" and "folk-magic" are dealt with extensively), as well as articles by Daniel C. Peterson, John Gee, Kevin Christensen, William Hamblin, Blake Ostler, Mike Ash, Kevin Barney, even Kerry Shirts. The material is out there, if people want to give it a fair shake, do their homework, and not just rely solely on the Brodies, Vogels, Tanners, and Quinns of the world.

The thing is, ultimately, there is no history that can "prove" the Book of Mormon. It, like the Bible, is its own defense. It is - I think by design - an act of faith to believe in it, and Joseph Smith's Restoration.

But I do think improvements can be made to decrease the likelihood of members falling away when they're first learning about the meddlesome bits. The CES is a fallible human organization doing the best they can do; I don't have to disdain their efforts, even when I disagree with their choices. However, I think the Church would be much better served by confronting the issues head-on; if the Church is true, and I believe it is, then we can take it. I'm a big proponent of the "inoculation" idea, and in my Elder's Quorum teaching, I try to bring up the hard issues in a faithful context, emphasizing that there is nothing to fear from increasing our light, even if that light is held by those who disagree with us.

Edit: I guess my point is that I came from the opposite extreme, and maybe we can learn from it. Mormons were kinda sneered at or ignored where I'm from, and so my "shocking revelations" were all the awesome parts of Mormonism which I had never been told about. All the problematic issues were there already, or found by a cursory search. There must be a way to preserve the excitement of reading Joseph Smith's deep theology for the first time, as opposed to the rather watered-down and paraphrased version in our manuals which is too often all that members seek out. *ponders*

Edited July 31, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Storm Rider]

I've seen a growing trend (at least in my ward) and was wondering if this is happening all over. There have been a number of members (life long members) in my ward that have left the church because of information they've read on the INTERNET. Most of the reasons I have heard were because of the history of the church that they say has been "hidden" from the general membership. Their testimony of Joseph Smith as well as other early leaders has crumbled to nothing. One family left because of this reason and that of the church's stand on homosexuality. They also felt that they just would never be "good enough" to be members of the church. I'd like to say that I just never paid much attention to it, but can't say that I believe that. I began to notice that our Elder's Quorum has shrunk considerably and I started asking questions. My wife is the Relief Society Secretary and has heard many of the stories. On a personal note, she too has been reading the same things. She told me just a couple of weeks ago that she didn't know if she could believe in Joseph Smith because A. He was a polygamist, B. He was a Treasure Seeker and C. A host of other accusations. The one thing that I find in common with all of these instances is the Internet and the information that is widely available. Does anyone else notice this trend or is it just me? If so, why won't the church come out and defend the accusations? Or at least clarify any misunderstandings?

I have not seen any of this in my ward or in my stake. I am aware that our critis, mostly our anti-Mormons (critic is too noble a term for this specific ilk), enjoy repeating this ad nauseum...baptisms happen but the Church is losing far more people than those that join; it has become standard propaganda. None of what you brought up is new and is all very standard stuff. I have never felt we have nothing to fear from history as long as history is taken in total.

There is something about even the very elect may fall and enduring to the end. If an individual is looking for a reason to fall away, they will certainly be able to find one.

The church defends itself well if an individual seeks to know truth. What makes you think they don't?

[ldsfaqs]

This issue isn't anything new. Even before the internet existed, someone would read some anti-mormon tomb put out by Baptists or some anti-mormon book like the God Makers.

My recommendation is to tell your wife to make sure she gets the "other side of the story" on the issues she is having problems with.

Tell her to go to FAIRLDS.org. Of course if that helps will depend on if she is still objective and still believing. If not, anything she reads will likely solidify her lack of faith, because she won't see the important information and connections that will clarify an issue, and not be a negative.

A. He was a polygamist,

She must not be much of a learner then. This fact is well known in the church.

However, if it makes her feel better. There is no solid evidence that he was a "Polygamist".

The only evidence we have is that he practiced "Plural Marriage", that is the Sealing Ordinance only.

His wife Emma swore to her death bed that he never did actually practice Polygamy. She wouldn't allow it.

Not only that, but Biblical Prophets practiced polygamy, and God even ordained it. Of course, anti's don't actually know their Bibles save what their religions tell them, so they use double standards against mormonism.

This are facts of history, facts the anti's just don't tell you.

B. He was a Treasure Seeker

When I was a kid I was a treasure seeker also, living in small towns.

Does that somehow make me evil? What else is a boy to do that is discovering his prophetic/revelatory powers, and he's a kid? What kid doesn't love treasure hunting?

Tell her that it's a common occurrence that a child that goes through a physical tramua (his leg operation without any drugs) to develop a latent talent, be it music, visions, etc.

Joseph having been a treasure seeker is normal.

C. A host of other accusations.

All of which have reasoned and MORE TRUTHFUL and accurate answers to, contrary to the anti-mormon bearing false witness which uses a little truth to tell great lies.

Tell your wife that anti-mormonism is the devils counterfeit to destroy the church and righteousness. Everything they say about the Church is perversion of it, a perversion of what the actual truth is. Tell her, as someone who's been in other religions, left the Church myself and was anti-mormon, I know for a fact what I'm talking about.

She needs to study LDS scholarship, and stop allowing herself to be deceived. Tell her, would she go to Fanatical Islam to learn the truth about the Jews?

Tell her to stop going to anti-mormons and absorbing their evil spirit. Nothing wrong with comparing sometimes, but if she's really interested in things of the intellect, history etc., then she MUST start reading LDS scholarship, and get a clue.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it might be a little more nuanced than just "telling" her to "get a clue". I think it's important to go slow, be calm, and respect her understanding. These are legitimate issues, and she's right to be concerned about them, but they do have answers. FAIR is a good place to start, as is the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

[Storm Rider]

It may be that she is lead somewhere else. Following a higher level of truth is demanding; some are more comfotable elsewhere. I have a few friends that have become good Catholics. The change has been good for them and they are faithful members of the Catholic Church and I consider them true followers of Jesus Christ. It just so happens at this point in their lives they find it more comfortable there. I try not to get over bothered by these types of changes as long as the individual is faithful in their new "home". In addition, I realize that I do not know our Father's plans for each of us and what wonders he will perform. Just as I have faith that I seek to be his instrument to serve others, I must believe that all those who seek after him are also his instrument.

Be respectful and make sure that you are as posivite a disciple as possible. Study together and support her while she struggles to find truth in all that she reads.

[Ariarates]

Not only that, but Biblical Prophets practiced polygamy, and God even ordained it. Of course, anti's don't actually know their Bibles save what their religions tell them, so they use double standards against mormonism.

I don't know very much about the Bible except what I've been taught in Seminary and Sunday School etc., so my layman's perspective is probably limited, but I don't come away from reading the Bible with a feeling that God ordained it. Are there any instances of polygamy in the Bible that aren't fraught with deceit, betrayal and anguish? What is the message the Bible is sending with these stories?

[OUmd]

It is interesting to me that many of the responses to this thread are aimed at the Church's "critics". The original poster mentioned nothing about "critics", but asked a question about the INTERNET. Are many of you inferring that "information on the Internet" is only from "critics"? Is anything found outside LDS.org automatically from a "critic"?

Much of the "hidden" LDS church history items I have learned about (i.e. Masonry and the temple, First Vision accounts/history, etc) all came from the Internet. However, the only information I tend to give much validity too are those that are referenced and documented from actual historical documents, many from Church sources.

My answer is yes. The Internet is and will continue to be a major source of "shaken faith". This is because what used to be buried deep in the Church and BYU libraries is now at everyone's fingertips. Even to the point of it being displayed nicely on a Wikipedia page. The encyclopedia on my parent's shelf never had a section of the different accounts of the First Vision written by Joseph or early Church members.

Every religion/organization has to deal with their history and no organization in the history of the world has ever been perfect. All "history" we are taught in schools/universities is biased towards the presenter. Period. I can empathize with why the Church wouldn't want to have a Sunday school lesson on the similarities of masonry and the imagery used in the temple. This doesn't mean that they are "hiding the truth", but as with ANY history lesson ANYONE can find faults with ANY historical "fact" if they look hard enough. The blessing/curse of the Internet is that now looking "hard enough" takes about 5 seconds with a Google search.

What makes the Church a little different from the typical history lesson is that we claim to be the Lord's Church. Trying to come to grips with this testimony and learning how to deal with "historical" inaccuracies is a real challenge. Faith, is and always will be, the first principle of the Gospel. Anyone that doesn't have a testimony of this will have a tough time with religion, in general, and might want to avoid Wikipedia if they want to have anything to do with a religious life.

[Glenn101]

What makes the Church a little different from the typical history lesson is that we claim to be the Lord's Church. Trying to come to grips with this testimony and learning how to deal with "historical" inaccuracies is a real challenge. Faith, is and always will be, the first principle of the Gospel. Anyone that doesn't have a testimony of this will have a tough time with religion, in general, and might want to avoid Wikipedia if they want to have anything to do with a religious life.

Your last statement is instructive, at least to me. My testimony is not based upon the history of the church.

And after learning a bit more history, i.e. that history is at best a patchwork with so much more information missing, that just do not worry about it. The same goes for the history of Jesus. I do not have a testimony of the historical Jesus. I do have a testimony of Jesus as my Lord and Savior and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Glenn

[OUmd]

Your last statement is instructive, at least to me. My testimony is not based upon the history of the church.

And after learning a bit more history, i.e. that history is at best a patchwork with so much more information missing, that just do not worry about it. The same goes for the history of Jesus. I do not have a testimony of the historical Jesus. I do have a testimony of Jesus as my Lord and Savior and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Glenn

My point exactly. I have come to the realization that the "history" of the Church is no different than the " historical Jesus". Both are fascinating to read and study about, but neither topics should ultimately have anything to do with my personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and my belief in the necessity of a restoration. If I try and relate them too much my brain (and heart) starts hurting.

[Deborah]

It is true that the internet has information at one's fingertips that he used to have to search for, and it's always been there for those interested in learning more. I'm a little surprised that anyone who's been in the church awhile didn't know Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. I learned it early on when I joined the church and it did take me by surprise but then I knew the church was true for other reasons so I tabled it until I could learn more.

The problem with what they may pick up on the internet is that it's often not in context. Without context of time, place, people and events one can come away with an incomplete picture. Furthermore as has been pointed out history is at best a guestimate of what actually happened based on fragments of material and the perspective of those who wrote those fragments. Even where we have the documented writings we need to be careful to look at the context and understand the difference in times and peoples. The Lord gives us information precept by precept. Contrary to what many like to think a prophet isn't given everything at once; he's given the plan and then he has to work out the best way to fulfill it, which is why a prophet has counselors. I think this is a marvelous statement of how the Lord puts his trust in us and will allow us to use our minds and agency.

I do think it's all part of sifting the wheat from the tares. After the Kirtland Bank fall many people left the church. There was a great sifting that took place. But those who were left were the faithful and they would need the strength of that faith to get them through the times that would come. I wonder if this rapid sifting taking place now is the same kind of precursor to what is to come.

[Palerider]

I joined the Church in part because of anti-Mormon materials on the Temple ordinances I read online, which actually functioned as a sort of free advertising. If these Jack Chick crazies were apoplectic over the LDS, then obviously the LDS were doing something right! *grin* However, I did not join until long after I had read - among many other things - Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, Teryl Givens' By The Hand of Mormon, a good deal of Nibley's oeuvre, Richard R. Hopkins' How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God, Edwin Hatch's Hibbert Lectures on The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, Orson Scott Card's numerous essays on the church in his Vigor samizdat newletter, his collection Storyteller in Zion, and his books such as the Alvin Maker series (a loosely allegorical fantasy retelling of Joseph Smith in which "treasure digging" and "folk-magic" are dealt with extensively), as well as articles by Daniel C. Peterson, John Gee, Kevin Christensen, William Hamblin, Blake Ostler, Mike Ash, Kevin Barney, even Kerry Shirts. The material is out there, if people want to give it a fair shake, do their homework, and not just rely solely on the Brodies, Vogels, Tanners, and Quinns of the world.

The thing is, ultimately, there is no history that can "prove" the Book of Mormon. It, like the Bible, is its own defense. It is - I think by design - an act of faith to believe in it, and Joseph Smith's Restoration.

But I do think improvements can be made to decrease the likelihood of members falling away when they're first learning about the meddlesome bits. The CES is a fallible human organization doing the best they can do; I don't have to disdain their efforts, even when I disagree with their choices. However, I think the Church would be much better served by confronting the issues head-on; if the Church is true, and I believe it is, then we can take it. I'm a big proponent of the "inoculation" idea, and in my Elder's Quorum teaching, I try to bring up the hard issues in a faithful context, emphasizing that there is nothing to fear from increasing our light, even if that light is held by those who disagree with us.

Edit: I guess my point is that I came from the opposite extreme, and maybe we can learn from it. Mormons were kinda sneered at or ignored where I'm from, and so my "shocking revelations" were all the awesome parts of Mormonism which I had never been told about. All the problematic issues were there already, or found by a cursory search. There must be a way to preserve the excitement of reading Joseph Smith's deep theology for the first time, as opposed to the rather watered-down and paraphrased version in our manuals which is too often all that members seek out. *ponders*

I think you have a fairly measured approach for those who come to the church in these days. The church's problem for me is that I was raised in the 1950's in a very predominantly LDS community which changes one's view because of historical context.

I remember specifically being taught (numerous times by different teachers) that evil men had tried to discredit Joseph by claiming that he was a treasure seeker. The truth (for Mormons then) was that he never was anything of the sort and it was all a lie trumped up by the forces of evil to hinder the restoration of the Gospel. Joseph, to put it the way one of the old timers did in a sacrament meeting, was "pristine", pure, golden etc. Most of those old time (pre-internet) Mormons have passed away and I can't help but wonder what their reaction might have been to find out they weren't teaching the truth regarding Joseph.

When evidence was found proving that Joseph had indeed been a treasure seeker the church had to come up with some plausible explanations/dismissals to make it palatable for the general membership and the more thorough investigator.

In my opinion if Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling had been written in the 1940's or 50's, there's a good chance he would have been facing church discipline for portraying the prophet in an unfavorable light.

[Deborah]

I remember specifically being taught (numerous times by different teachers) that evil men had tried to discredit Joseph by claiming that he was a treasure seeker. The truth (for Mormons then) was that he never was anything of the sort and it was all a lie trumped up by the forces of evil to hinder the restoration of the Gospel.

I don't deny that I didn't hear these same kinds of teachings. I think all of us who've been in the church for awhile have. But I guess I just didn't put much stock in it, probably because history of any kind didn't interest me at the time. Fortunately as I had more access to other materials I was able to put this all in perspective. I wonder if one reason so much inaccurate information was taught was because even those putting together the manuals were ignorant simply because so much was not available but still locked in the vaults or in old texts no longer published. I think the church has been very good as more of the older documents have been studied to publish those things in the church magazines and encourage other scholarly works, such as The Joseph Smith Papers. That says a lot to me about the church "trying to hide" stuff.

This article from 1971 addresses treasure seeking early years

also from this student manual treasure seeking:

Treasure hunting, or “money-digging” as it was then called, was a craze in the United States at this time. In October 1825, Josiah Stowell, from South Bainbridge, New York, a farmer, lumber mill owner, and deacon in the Presbyterian church, came to ask Joseph to help him in such a venture. Stowell had relatives in Palmyra and probably heard of Joseph from them. Stowell was looking for a legendary lost silver mine that was thought to have been opened by Spaniards in northern Pennsylvania. Stowell had heard that Joseph was able to discern invisible things and desired his assistance in the project. The Prophet was reluctant, but Stowell persisted, and since Joseph’s family was in need, he and his father together with other neighbors agreed to go. It was a decision that would have great importance to Joseph’s life and the future of the Church.

[Palerider]

I don't deny that I didn't hear these same kinds of teachings. I think all of us who've been in the church for awhile have. But I guess I just didn't put much stock in it, probably because history of any kind didn't interest me at the time. Fortunately as I had more access to other materials I was able to put this all in perspective. I wonder if one reason so much inaccurate information was taught was because even those putting together the manuals were ignorant simply because so much was not available but still locked in the vaults or in old texts no longer published. I think the church has been very good as more of the older documents have been studied to publish those things in the church magazines and encourage other scholarly works, such as The Joseph Smith Papers. That says a lot to me about the church "trying to hide" stuff.

This article from 1971 addresses treasure seeking early years

also from this student manual treasure seeking:

" I wonder if one reason so much inaccurate information was taught was because even those putting together the manuals were ignorant simply because so much was not available but still locked in the vaults or in old texts no longer published."

You don't suppose it was because Joseph failed to tell them (his contemporaries) of his past? All Joseph had to do was relate his own history accurately and this would not have become an issue..........

Edited July 31, 2011 by Palerider

[bluebell]

I don't know very much about the Bible except what I've been taught in Seminary and Sunday School etc., so my layman's perspective is probably limited, but I don't come away from reading the Bible with a feeling that God ordained it. Are there any instances of polygamy in the Bible that aren't fraught with deceit, betrayal and anguish? What is the message the Bible is sending with these stories?

Probably the best defense of polygamy in the bible is where it's taught that some of the wives of david were given to him by the Lord through the prophet Nathan and how the 12 tribes of Israel-God's chosen people-were created through polygamy which God condoned.

[Storm Rider]

" I wonder if one reason so much inaccurate information was taught was because even those putting together the manuals were ignorant simply because so much was not available but still locked in the vaults or in old texts no longer published."

You don't suppose it was because Joseph failed to tell them (his contemporaries) of his past? All Joseph had to do was relate his own history accurately and this would not have become an issue..........

Oh, that's right! That dang ol'Joe; you just can't trust that varmint. This seems to be a broken record. How about there is nothing to fear from history when taken in proper context. How about knowing enough about the Old Testament that no Christian could ever, as EVER, throw a stone at the history of Mormonism. LDS history is quite tame compared to ancient Israel. Just as it is best Christians as a group hide their head in the sand about the OT, sometimes we have LDS who do the same with CH. Of course, having those friendly anti-Mormons (not critics) beginning with Howe on down the list to twist everything every which way but accurately does not help.

[Deborah]

You don't suppose it was because Joseph failed to tell them (his contemporaries) of his past? All Joseph had to do was relate his own history accurately and this would not have become an issue..........

You've got to be kidding. How on earth would his contemporaries not know since it was the source of so many rumors and criticisms. Of course they would know about him. How do you think we got the history to begin with. It's not his contemporaries who had a problem with this given the times where such things were more acceptable.

[Xander]

You've got to be kidding. How on earth would his contemporaries not know since it was the source of so many rumors and criticisms. Of course they would know about him. How do you think we got the history to begin with. It's not his contemporaries who had a problem with this given the times where such things were more acceptable.

The source of the rumors was reality. The rumor about his polygamous affairs was based on his attempt to secretly institute the practice. The rumor about him marrying other men's wives, was based on the fact that he did. What exactly is it that the Nauvoo Expositor published that wasn't true? People were leaving the Church based on the allegation of polygamy, and that is why Joseph Smith decided to lie about it publicly. He knew telling the truth would result in even more apostasy and possibly violence towards him and the Church.

[Storm Rider]

The source of the rumors was reality. The rumor about his polygamous affairs was based on his attempt to secretly institute the practice. The rumor about him marrying other men's wives, was based on the fact that he did. What exactly is it that the Nauvoo Expositor published that wasn't true? People were leaving the Church based on the allegation of polygamy, and that is why Joseph Smith decided to lie about it publicly. He knew telling the truth would result in even more apostasy and possibly violence towards him and the Church.

Xander, what do you think more violence would have looked like?

[rpn]

The internet over the next ten years may end up being helpful, as it allows increasing access to original documents. I cannot even count the frequency that when I have tracked a source for a faith destroying interpretation, I found it either didn't come close to supporting what it claimed to be supporting, or (b) could just as easily be interpreted in a non-faith destroying way. I read a discussion somewhere last week that the LDS church archives index has been digitized and that individual collections that don't involve privacy or other confidential issues will be digitized as they are requested. And the josephsmithpapers.org site will at some point have most of what he wrote said (whenever I read Jane Manning James, a young woman who served as the prophet's maid in Nauvoo, was asked by Joseph if she wanted to be sealed to him and Emma --- she had not decided when he died---I wonder if the truth of the fanny alger (also a maid in his household) is something along the same lines. Unless a person research all the household help and any information that remains, it wouldn't even come up to think there could be a pattern that had nothing to do with the way the critics play the story).

[frankenstein]

She must not be much of a learner then. This fact is well known in the church.

No it is not "well known".

However, if it makes her feel better. There is no solid evidence that he was a "Polygamist".

The only evidence we have is that he practiced "Plural Marriage", that is the Sealing Ordinance only.

His wife Emma swore to her death bed that he never did actually practice Polygamy. She wouldn't allow it.

Not only that, but Biblical Prophets practiced polygamy, and God even ordained it. Of course, anti's don't actually know their Bibles save what their religions tell them, so they use double standards against mormonism.

This are facts of history, facts the anti's just don't tell you.

Temple Lot Case, "wives" of Joseph Smith testify to the contrary.

Also, is there any reasonable difference between the terms "polygamy" and "plural marriage". Based on meriam-webster, there isn't, as both involve having more than one wife, and intercourse is not a requirement.

When I was a kid I was a treasure seeker also, living in small towns.

Does that somehow make me evil? What else is a boy to do that is discovering his prophetic/revelatory powers, and he's a kid? What kid doesn't love treasure hunting?

Tell her that it's a common occurrence that a child that goes through a physical tramua (his leg operation without any drugs) to develop a latent talent, be it music, visions, etc.

Joseph having been a treasure seeker is normal.

I agree. I think it was Joseph Fielding Smith, who said "Yes he [Joseph Smith] was a treasure seeker, but he was not a horse thief". I have a metal detector and "seek treasure" when ever I can.

-------------

as for the internet and shaking faith, I think there are two main factors, one the information that is alleged to be "covered up" and two the Members of the LDS Church who treat those with questions very very poorly and sometimes with ridicule for their questions.

Edited July 31, 2011 by frankenstein