Inoculating Ourselves From Certain Aspects Of Church History

[Jeff K.]

As I was saying, interpretation. We aren't sure exactly what happened and what the circumstances were.

[why me]

Hamba Tuhan,

You know, many folks really get tired of hearing about interpretation. Some things are what they are.

What possible reasonable non-toxic interpretation can one put on the fact, as reflected in the official records of the LDS Church, that Joseph Smith was married to some 29 females, some of them other men's wives, during a time when he denied publically that he had more than one wife?

What things are often are read through a lens of interpretation. And it is in this interpretation that problems arise. At times an interpretation can be offensive. I can't say how because the thread may be closed. But certainly we have examples of revisionist interpretations that have offended various groups of people.

The interpretation of the above can be classified into two: the critic and the faithful. The critic has filled the internet with hateful interpretations which by the way, they do get away with. However, if the lds church comes out with their own version, then it will be the version that will be attacked and not the fact. And this is the point.

[why me]

Because there is too much just plain worthless junk with FAIR; some times part of a FAIR response is "so what" other times FAIR articles spend too much time bashing other religions. So in the end until FAIR gets out of attack mode and criticism mode it is not worth reading, if I want to see people defending their religion via the fallacy of attacking someone else rather than address the substance of issues I can go visit many other places.

Now frankenstein, let me explain something to you. When people read something on FAIR they reach a conclusion that it is filled with useless junk. However, in this internet age, one can read FAIR shallowly or one can read FAIR critically. A critical reader will weigh what is written carefully and thoughtfully and reached a balanced conclusion. I shallow reader will skim FAIR or read FAIR and reach a conclusion that it is junk. And this is the problem with interpretation. With a critical response, a point from an article is taken from the main piece and questioned and reflected on.

What we get from many critics is the attitude you display. Thus, the problem with anything the lds church published about their interpretation.

[why me]

It is worth remembering that the average member of the church today knows FAR more about LDS history than the average member 50 years ago.

And, by the way, context is everything in history.

You are absolutely right especially about context. However I can also add imagination. A historian needs context, interpretation and imagination. All help to give a good understanding of the event.

[Daniel Peterson]

You know, of course, that official and publically available LDS Church records show that Joseph Smith was married to more than two dozen women, four of whom were teenagers, (one as young as 14) and many of whom other men's wives.

You must also know that Joseph Smith denied having these wives publically and on the record, claiming instead that he had only one wife.

How can these documented actions, events and behaviors, sustained over long periods of time, be made less repugnant by context adjustment?

I think that the essay by Brian Hales and the essay by Craig Foster and David Keller and Greg Smith in Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster, eds. The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, are quite helpful indeed.

I take it that you don't agree.

[Duncan]

I think that the essay by Brian Hales and the essay by Craig Foster and David Keller and Greg Smith in Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster, eds. The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, are quite helpful indeed.

I take it that you don't agree.

I must've missed that book! $25 from amazon is a steal

[Daniel Peterson]

Inoculation does not make something more or less correct.

That's true. And if anybody here has been arguing the contrary, I hope that person will cease and desist.

Putting a positive spin on a disturbing event is still whitewashing.

Quite so. And putting a seemingly disturbing thing into a context that makes it less disturbing is still entirely justified and quite helpful.

I would be more satisfied if the church came out and said this or that was wrong it should have never happened.

I would, personally, be very dissatisfied if the Church were to come out and declare something wrong that was right, and to say that something shouldn't have happened that should, in fact, have happened.

Tis a shame for you my opinion was formed from what you claim I refuse to read.

I'm not quite clear about just exactly how anything that you do or don't do is a "shame" for me.

Though its common for people to deny theory pets poop in someone else yard.

Well, if you pooped in somebody else's backyard, I would say that that's your problem, not mine.

My apologies. When you said that you would not read FAIR materials, I took you to mean that you wouldn't read FAIR materials.

In any event, I don't agree with your take on FAIR materials, and I think that they're worth reading, whether you read them or not and whatever your relationship with your neighbors may be.

.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[altersteve]

You must also know that Joseph Smith denied having these wives publically and on the record, claiming instead that he had only one wife.

And you must know that in his eyes, he did in fact have only one wife. As far as I'm aware, he never considered any of the other women he was sealed to as his wives.

[cinepro]

"There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with [this generation], tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

-Elder Jensen

It appears to be a universal assumption that Elder Jensen is referring to things that we, the enlightened on the internet, already know about.

What if he is referring to negative points of Church history that only those with access to the First Presidency's vault know? If the Church is merely responding to the past few decades of critics and new-Mormon scholarship, then it is the critics who are leading this dance with the Church trying to keep up. If the Church wants to take the reigns and start calling the tune, it would bring out possibly faith-challenging scholarship that no one has seen yet.

Edited January 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Duncan]

It appears to be a universal assumption that Elder Jensen is referring to things that we, the enlightened on the internet, already know about.

What if he is referring to negative points of Church history that only those with access to the First Presidency's vault know? If the Church is merely responding to the past few decades of critics and new-Mormon scholarship, then it is the critics who are leading this dance with the Church trying to keep up. If the Church wants to take the reigns and start calling the tune, it would bring out possibly faith-challenging scholarship that no one has seen yet.

what about "faith promoting" materials as well? however every historian knows that if new documents suddenly appear red flags go up

[Daniel Peterson]

what about "faith promoting" materials as well? however every historian knows that if new documents suddenly appear red flags go up

I spent a year or two, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s,, poring over a copy of the journals of George Q. Cannon, who served as a counselor to four presidents of the Church (Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow). The original journals have never been made public; my "edition" was produced by a meticulous copyist from the Cannon family, but, though I had it, was also never released to the public.

I loved the journals. They are one of the great treasures from nineteenth-century Utah. There was nothing embarrassing in them, nothing damaging to faith, nothing that would harm the confidence of Latter-day Saints in their history or leaders. Quite the contrary. I would very much like to see them published someday, in toto. I can see no reason not to do so.

.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[why me]

I spent a year or two, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s,, poring over a copy of the journals of George Q. Cannon, who served as a counselor to four presidents of the Church (Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow). The original journals have never been made public; my "edition" was produced by a meticulous copyist from the Cannon family, but, though I had it, was also never released to the public.

I loved the journals. They are one of the great treasures from nineteenth-century Utah. There was nothing embarrassing in them, nothing damaging to faith, nothing that would harm the confidence of Latter-day Saints in their history or leaders. Quite the contrary. I would very much like to see them published someday, in toto. I can see no reason not to do so.

.

You are right, Dan. It is unfortunate that the lds church does not utilize these more. I think that we will see in the future the lds coming forth with more faith promoting history while tackling the controversial aspects brought up by critics. At least I hope so.

[Duncan]

I spent a year or two, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s,, poring over a copy of the journals of George Q. Cannon, who served as a counselor to four presidents of the Church (Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow). The original journals have never been made public; my "edition" was produced by a meticulous copyist from the Cannon family, but, though I had it, was also never released to the public.

I loved the journals. They are one of the great treasures from nineteenth-century Utah. There was nothing embarrassing in them, nothing damaging to faith, nothing that would harm the confidence of Latter-day Saints in their history or leaders. Quite the contrary. I would very much like to see them published someday, in toto. I can see no reason not to do so.

.

lucky! wish i could do that, all day long! what I was thinking of was materials that other known materials had never made mention of or historians who have studied the subject had never heard of before. I used to know a great example but have forgotten now...Granted too things do appear elsewise historians would have nothing to write from! and you need to verify their authenticity and provenance

Edited January 23, 2012 by Duncan

[Daniel Peterson]

lucky! wish i could do that, all day long! what I was thinking of was materials that other known materials had never made mention of or historians who have studied the subject had never heard of before. I used to know a great example but have forgotten now...Granted too things do appear elsewise historians would have nothing to write from! and you need to verify their authenticity and provenance

One night, we had a group in our house that included Tom Alexander, a noted historian of Mormonism and the West, as well as the two former assistant Church historians, Jim Allen and the late Davis Bitton -- all three of them former presidents of the Mormon History Association and all three very good friends. Before our little event formally began, they started talking about whose journals from the nineteenth-century Church they would most like to see. They agreed that they would most like to see George Q. Cannon's. But it is locked up in the First Presidency's vault.

I was sworn to secrecy. I couldn't tell them that a faithful copy of the entire 36-volume Cannon journal was, at that very moment, about ten feet below them, in my basement office.

[Storm Rider]

I think the church should form a committee composed equally of scholars who are LDS and who are not LDS and have them create answers to the questions raised.

H.

That is the path the RLDS Church took and you see where that got them. Now they are so confused they don't know who or what they are.

[Duncan]

One night, we had a group in our house that included Tom Alexander, a noted historian of Mormonism and the West, as well as the two former assistant Church historians, Jim Allen and the late Davis Bitton -- all three of them former presidents of the Mormon History Association and all three very good friends. Before our little event formally began, they started talking about whose journals from the nineteenth-century Church they would most like to see. They agreed that they would most like to see George Q. Cannon's. But it is locked up in the First Presidency's vault.

I was sworn to secrecy. I couldn't tell them that a faithful copy of the entire 36-volume Cannon journal was, at that very moment, about ten feet below them, in my basement office.

oh, I believe you! I am wondering though if these brethren had known that Cannon kept journals, so it wouldn't be a huge surprise to them if and when they are released to the public. Whereas it would be a shock to a historian if a document came from someone who wasn't known to have generated a lot of material or it hadn't survived-I was thinking of potential forgeries and suspect documents. When is the Cannon journal coming out?

Edited January 23, 2012 by Duncan

[Libs]

But "facts" do not make "truth". No "fact" exists outside its context, and without the context, there is no way to determine what the fact means.

Joe shot Harold. This is a "fact". Now, is Joe guilty of murder?

What if Harold was raping Joe's wife, holding her at knife point while doing so?

What if Harold was an enemy soldier and Joe was defending his part of the front line?

What if Joe was handing Harold a pistol, and Harold jerked it out of Joe's hand?

What if Harold was a rabid dog?

What if Harold was not killed?

What if both Joe and Harold were comic book (oops, sorry, graphic novel) characters?

The list of possible contexts is huge. No one can assume anything about either Joe or Harold, or about the shooting, and anyone who does is making a huge mistake in doing so.

Joseph Smith married several women. He was sealed to many more. Neither of these facts is in dispute (except by BookofMormonLuvr). What we do not know is what "sealing", or even "marriage", meant to him and to them. You cannot assume he was "married" (as we understand the term) to any specific woman without a lot more information than is available.

We do know, for instance, that women who were sealed to him continued to live with their husbands (except, I am told, in one case, but the details are fuzzy in my memory: I vaguely recall she wanted a divorce, but ...). He did not call them his wives. We know that Vilate Kimball did not stop going to dances with young men even while Joseph was alive.

We also know that chronocentrism, especially presentism, is a very, very bad way to judge history.

We know that polygyny is a huge benefit to many women, and a detriment to many men. No woman is harmed by it, per se, and many men are. Feminists should demand that polygyny be made the law of the land. As one LDS woman said, it puts men in their place and shows them that the women don’t need them very much.

We know that, when He wants to, the Lord can command His people (especially His prophets) to do things that are extraordinary. "Extraordinary" includes, in today's world, polygyny.

Lehi

Yes, I understand. But, it is difficult for some of us, when there is little to no context for some of these facts...or sometimes even negative evidence to go with the facts, that would make us wonder what in the world really went on. Things like various comments made in journals that would indicate that Joseph did have a relationship with some of his wives. That caused me to wonder if he had relations with all of his wives. Also, it didn't help that Warren Jeffs was in the news, when I first found out about all of this. I didn't/don't want to believe there was any parallel between the two, but I have to admit, I did wonder. But, then, I'll be the first to admit I was listening, mostly, to anti-Mormons, so I got the worst possible spin, at first.

I do think it would be a good thing for the church to present some of this history in Gospel Doctrine, but I think some of these facts do need some kind of context, because the facts, by themselves, are not very...digestible. At least, not for me (and many others, I know). Or maybe I just needed to leave...lol. I donno. I don't guilt trip myself anymore, about leaving, but I did for along time. Was I really overly sensitive....did I really give it enough thought...enough time...was I fair....why do I still love the Book of Mormon? blah blah and on and on.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You know, many folks really get tired of hearing about interpretation. Some things are what they are.

Yeah, I remember being annoyed in primary school when my teacher tried to convince us that 1+1=2 in the decimal number system but 10 in the binary number system.

I'm a professional historian, and your claim that data speak for themselves is risible...and demonstrably false.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Was I really overly sensitive....did I really give it enough thought...enough time...was I fair....why do I still love the Book of Mormon?

Take all the time you still need, and then please come home.

[CV75]

Elder Jensen talks about the difficulties some Mormons face when learning about certain aspects of Church History. It appears that the Church is going to be taking a new direction to address this issue.

History is what people do; exercising keys is what God does. What people do cannot affect my relationship with God, whether for the better or for the worse.

“Problematic history” is like “problematic people” and the Sermon on the Mount applies. God is not problematic and anything I have been given of Him is better than anything problematic people can give me (Matthew 10:28).

It will be interesting to see how the Church addresss its history that people complain about. It looks like part of the approach is technological, guiding search engines to better online resources. I suspect that rather than go on the defensive against every complaint, it would promote an understanding and forgiving attitude about people, consistent with its message. If people still pass judgment and insist that someone did something horrible, they can still go the second mile and do better themselves. But nothing is worth giving up God’s promises for.

[Deborah]

From what I've heard from scholars and church historians who have had access to the unpublished journals the outcome is that the truth claims of the Prophet Joseph and the church are confirmed. The more I read the more convinced I am of the same. This I think is the problem with someone who discovers through reading some "disturbing" piece of information: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's like sound bites in our current political arena. They give an impression which is most often not true or only a portion of the truth and therefore can be deceiving.

[Storm Rider]

For me it has always been about the Holy Spirit and the scriptures. Every time I read the Bible I find the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The scriptures never create a problem or conflict with the Church or the gospel. The Holy Spirit always confirms its truthfulness. My testimony has never been built on the prophets or, in large part, to the restoration. The restoration only reconfirms what the scriptures taught all along.

Men are always men regardless of their calling as prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers, home teachings, sunday school teachers, relief society presidents, etc. They are just human and they do their best and still fail. They remain sinners and we should never expect perfection out of them.

I only have to look at myself in the mirror to know how weak I am and to not judge their shortcomings. God uses each of us in our weakness to acommplish his will. The question is always do we want to submit to him or not.

[Jaybear]

I spent a year or two, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s,, poring over a copy of the journals of George Q. Cannon, who served as a counselor to four presidents of the Church (Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow). The original journals have never been made public; my "edition" was produced by a meticulous copyist from the Cannon family, but, though I had it, was also never released to the public.

I loved the journals. They are one of the great treasures from nineteenth-century Utah.

Question.

Were these journals written by Cannon with the intent and understanding that they were and would remain private property, and thus he would be free to record his personal and intimate thoughts?

...or are they the product of a scribe retained by the LDS Church to record the daily events and statements of the Prophets for posterity?

There was nothing embarrassing in them, nothing damaging to faith, nothing that would harm the confidence of Latter-day Saints in their history or leaders. Quite the contrary. I would very much like to see them published someday, in toto. I can see no reason not to do so.

Can we infer from this comment, that in your opinion, the existence of embarrasing content would be a valid reason for the LDS Church to supress the contents of historical documents?

[frankenstein]

If the Church officially addressed some issues, that would be good for missionaries. Greenies wont have to out on a mission sitting infront of some antagonist to learn things about Joseph Smith.

[CV75]

If the Church officially addressed some issues, that would be good for missionaries. Greenies wont have to out on a mission sitting infront of some antagonist to learn things about Joseph Smith.

Perhaps to a certain extent, but most antagonistic conversations (which are not condisive to the Spirit anyway) end up as a collossal waste of time since the piling up historical sources pro-and con won't give someone anyhting worth praying about. Might as well arm missioanries with scientific evidence. Even if a missioanry has a talent for history and science, that just ain't the way it works.