Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[sjdawg]

Deleted. Not going to waste my time with selek1

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[Calm]

never mind, read it too quickly

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Mark Beesley]

Also when I was growing up the Church went out of its way to consistently remind us not to spend time researching anything that might be considered anti-mormon.

Does that mean your Home Teachers visited your family more than once a month? That's the only thing I can conceive of that would qualify as the "Church [going] out of its way" for anything of that nature.

[Calm]

In other words, you have no interest in having your preconceptions challenged by fact.

I think this could be an overstatement. After all, he is reading and posting on this thread and he is familiar enough with the board to expect there will be contrary viewpoints/experiences posted along with supporting citations, possibly some from lds.org. While not interested enough in finding citations himself, I don't think one can say he's not interested in having his preconceptions challenged at all, whether by fact or others' opinions. Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Does that mean your Home Teachers visited your family more than once a month? That's the only thing I can conceive of that would qualify as the "Church [going] out of its way" for anything of that nature.

I was hoping that he would be able to give examples that showed the consistent nature as well as specifics, but I didn't actually ask for that....perhaps now that it has been pointed out he could explain what he means by "consistent" as well as 'going out of its way'?

"Going out of its way" to teach something would be interpreted in my view as doing something above and beyond how doctrines and policies are usually taught in class, through manuals, etc.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[sjdawg]

I think this could be an overstatement. After all, he is reading and posting on this thread and he is familiar enough with the board to expect there will be contrary viewpoints/experiences posted along with supporting citations, possibly some from lds.org. While not interested enough in finding citations himself, I don't think one can say he's not interested in having his preconceptions challenged at all, whether by fact or others' opinions.

Thank you. There are many topics I will search out on LDS.org and other sites. This just isn't one of them. I was referencing my own personal recollection and an article in support or disagreement of my experience wouldn't change anything.

I readily acknowledge that my experience may not be driven by doctrine or even be the norm for most members. It was only my experience growing up in small town Alberta

[Calm]

It was only my experience growing up in small town Alberta

I will excuse you of almost anything if you are from "small town Alberta".....sigh, I get very homesick for Canada in the summer.

[sjdawg]

Does that mean your Home Teachers visited your family more than once a month? That's the only thing I can conceive of that would qualify as the "Church [going] out of its way" for anything of that nature.

I don't think they came more than once a month, but they did come every month and sometimes stayed for what felt like an eternity (to a teenager). Does that count?

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[sweetpotatoh]

reelmormon,

Perhaps we as adults, who live and serve in the church should tell our children the truth of polygamy. I have talked about it with my children and my mother talked about it with me. I use to wonder why I should care about the history of the church. Why it mattered. I now know that by embracing the history of the church and sharing it with my family I can help provide context and meaning to the church and share its history with them. That is the great thing about being a parent, we can teach our children the things that are important to us and give them meaning to our families.

This information is available and has been long before the advent of the Internet. Instead of blaming the church why not ask those who raised you why they did not discuss these things with you? Maybe by doing so you can help them understand why the issue is so important to you and to insure that it isn't repeated again.

Being raised in Utah we are exposed to such subjects in history lessons at school. At least in the junior high I attended. Let the church concentrate on the spiritual mission and let us fill in the details that we feel are important for our families to know.

[selek1]

I think this could be an overstatement.

You are correct. It was a misstatement.

It should have read, "In other words, you're not interested in providing anything resembling evidence for your scurrilous accusation."

Sjdawg made the accusation that the Church taught members not to read material from non-LDS sources.

When confronted with the absurdity of that charge, he amended the accusation to the following:

Also when I was growing up the Church went out of its way to consistently remind us not to spend time researching anything that might be considered anti-mormon. (Not sure if this is still the case).

He was asked for proof, and muttered something inane about the curricula, and was then asked for evidence in support for his charges.

He failed to offer any- and was then pointed to LDS.org as the authoritative source for LDS curricula, with the hope that he might find his evidence there.

He has refused, stating he's not interested.

By his own admission, sjdawg refuses to do even the most cursory research to support his accusations.

His opinions should be weighted accordingly.

Edited June 15, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I hate to see you lose debates with me

I don't think there's any danger of that.

Thus far, all you've offered us are unfounded accusations based on abitrary and pernicious redefinitions.

The only people you've managed to sway thus far are those who've already drunk the Kool-aid.

You are out of the thread

I think investigators deserve to know what they are signing up for.

I agree- but so far you've offered only your opinion as evidence that they don't know what they're signing up for.

I agree but I also think every investigator and member should have the truth available to them and they should know it is available to them at a church source.

You have yet to present any evidence that the truth is not available to them.

And whether it should be available to them from a Church source is a matter of preference and opinion.

By not discussing the full story it makes it appear they have something to hide, which to some level you admit that the church doesn't want to talk polygamy because it would lower conversions.

This tired old chestnut is still false despite its many repetitions.

It is also (in this instance) a shifting of the goalposts.

Your initial charge was censorship.

Having been beaten like a rug on that charge, you're retreating to this level of inanity.

Nobody here will disagree that the Church does not focus its curricula on polygamy. But we are not afraid to discuss it where appropriate nor to answer goof-faith questions about it.

We are more than happy to discuss the full story. Our time, however, is limited and precious. It would be inappropriate to divery what few resources we have to indulge pernicious Gospel hobbies.

What meager time we do have in class is fully spent in teaching Gospel truths. Hobbies should be done on your time, not the Lord's.

i see this as an out, a way to dismiss not having to be upfront and truthful. I need to make sales to feed my family therefore it is ok that I lie about this product lasting forever and is made of top quality parts.

Once again, your are begging the question.

You have nowhere demonstrated that the Church is not being upfront and truthful.

That we favor doctrinal and salvational materials over the indulgence of gospel hobbies is not automagically "dishonest".

[sjdawg]

I will excuse you of almost anything if you are from "small town Alberta".....sigh, I get very homesick for Canada in the summer.

It is a good place but in January I'm ready to relocate to a wamer climate.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

So what is the point exactly of digging up polygamy and historical issues? If you want to find the history you can. If it makes people want to leave the church so be it. Right or wrong what is constrive in telling everyone every single piece of church history or exposing the darker parts therein?

Critics within and without the church claim to have no agenda and beat the drums of truth when for those who seek it may find it easily as they did. What exactly is thier point? Maybe apologist's should dig up the critic's history and expose it. Many who have been critical have been shown later to not living up to LDS standards. So is it wrong to say they may have an agenda to harm or justfy thier position or lifestyle which they previously hid?

I'm non-practicing and I disagree with much of what the LDS church believes and teaches. I've studied the history and there is much that disturbs me. However I don't feel that the church and the members should have to bend thier belief and lifestyle to mine as to make it more comfortable me or make it easier for me to maintain my relationships with those who believe. Or drag out all of the church's history and put it on a silver platter to spoon feed me and others in the hope of reforming or liberalizing the church to suit my needs and conscience.

I feel for those who feel hurt as I have felt that too. At some point however I decided I need to be my own kind of Mormon because it's my history and culture for good or bad. It is however to my right to ask the church to change or make itself implode or appologize simply to me or others like me. The history is there and it is availble to those who seek it. Let's face the fact though, I know many people that simply don't know or read the scriptures let alone the history that is taught.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I meant to say it isn't my right.*

[Calm]

I meant to say it isn't my right.*

You will be able to edit your posts when you hit 25 posts total.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

LOL calmoriah, I figured. Thank you.

[DBMormon]

Perhaps we as adults, who live and serve in the church should tell our children the truth of polygamy. I have talked about it with my children and my mother talked about it with me. I use to wonder why I should care about the history of the church. Why it mattered. I now know that by embracing the history of the church and sharing it with my family I can help provide context and meaning to the church and share its history with them. That is the great thing about being a parent, we can teach our children the things that are important to us and give them meaning to our families

SWEETPOTATO - first in your comments you said in Utah - not everyone is in utah and it is a different world outside of that state. My entire k-12 schooling probably spent less then 3 minutes on mormonism. 2nd - I am a convert and the only member in my family..... sorry for me, but no one to tell me. ....different world

What meager time we do have in class is fully spent in teaching Gospel truths. Hobbies should be done on your time, not the Lord's.

I agree, should not be a issue that takes up a lot of time, but you would think somewhere in the church manuals, history, website, somewhere... somewhere there would be some statement that hey by the way Joseph was sealed to the wives of other men. Think about that, in all the offcial church material, not once are we told that. In utah... you already know it. But the millions who join outside of utah don't... I deserved to know and to hear it from the one I loved and trusted (the church) they omit it completely from their history. And if it wasn't out of being reactive to the internet they would have been happy to keep that unspoken about forever. Rough Stone Rolling, Joseph Smith papers.... 2005 to present. Before 2005 who besides critics told me that Joseph was sealed to another man's wife? 1844 - present and it takes to 2005 and pressure from the WWW to finally get the church to open up and speak about it...........hmmmph

You have yet to present any evidence that the truth is not available to them.

Using LDS.ORG, church Magazines, GC talk, church manual (i will accept other sources if you get my ok first) I want you to show me anything that says Jospeh was sealed to another man's wife? Familysearch doesn't count for those who were thinking ahead. Where would the average member ever hear that?

polygamy doesn't bother me at all by the way. Polyandry doesn't for that matter other then my church was afraid to tell me

[Calm]

And if it wasn't out of being reactive to the internet they would have been happy to keep that unspoken about forever.

Assumptions like this is what likely causes some people to look on you as less than devoted to the Church as you are not giving the Church the benefit of the doubt here, but assuming the worst (that church leadership at the top would have kept it "unspoken" if they had a choice in the matter.

[Calm]

Before 2005 who besides critics told me that Joseph was sealed to another man's wife?

Paper from 2003: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf

Also In Sacred Loneliness was published in 1997. The reviews in FARMs publications probably addressed polyandry. I remember one review that discussed Compton's choice of who to count as a wife of JS or not that would have to have mentioned if these women were married to other men.

John A. Widtsoe's comment quoted in the Kaitch paper were made in 1951.

Therefore any ceremony uniting a married woman, for example, to Joseph Smith for eternity seemed adulterous to such people.

from John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith—Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 239. Considering how it was written by an apostle, it was probably quite popular.

Widtsoe wrote Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth Prophet of God. It was published in 1951, and later reprinted by Bookcraft in 1957. It begins with an account of the first vision and goes all the way toJoseph Smith's martyrdom at Carthage.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia....John_A._Widtsoe

Apparently it was discussed in conference in the early days of the Church and thus published in the Journal of Discourses, not in detail but the principle:

What would a man of God say, who felt aright,

when Joseph asked him for his money? He

would say, “Yes, and I wish I had more to help

to build up the kingdom of God.” Or if he came

and said, “I want your wife?” “O yes,” he would

say, “here she is, there are plenty more.”...I would

ask you if Jehovah has not in all ages tried His

people by the power of Lucifer and his associ-

ates; and on the other hand, has He not tried

them and proved them by His Prophets? Did

the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac?

Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife

he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was

the grand thread of the Priesthood developed.

The grand object in view was to try the people

of God, to see what was in them. If such a man

of God should come to me and say, “I want your

gold and silver, or your wives,” I should say,

“Here they are, I wish I had more to give you,

take all I have got.” A man who has got the Spirit

of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no

trouble about such matters. I am talking now of

the present day. There was a time when we could

be tried pretty severely upon these points, but I

now could pick you out hundreds of men that

cannot be tried in this way, but they will hand

over every thing they possess. They understand

the nature of such doctrines, and the object of

such requirements. They know it is to prove the

people, both men and women, and to develop

what they will do.17

Jedediah M. Grant, “The Power of God and the Power of

Satan,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 19 Feb-

ruary 1854, Vol. 2 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot,

1855), 14See Danel W. Bachman, “Prologue to the Study of Joseph

Smith’s Marital Theology, ‘Compton: In Sacred Loneliness’,”

FARMS Review of Books 10:2 (1998), 126–134.

Mary Lightner apparently published her story of marriage to Adam Lightner and sealing to Joseph Smith in the Utah Genealogical and

Historical Magazine [17 (July 1926) 202–203, 81, reprinted in ISL].

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[sweetpotatoh]

reelmormon,

As a convert did you find it hard to discover the information? I think that it is more important for the church to focus on the spiritual. I agree that not everyone will know about polygamy. I did visit Hillsdale College, in Michigan back in 1990 and the first thing i was asked when a student found out I was Mormon was how many mothers I had. The information is out there. In fact my daughter at middle school in California, San Diego Couty, has been asked several times how many mothers she has. My point is that the information is out there.

I prefer that we learn a little at a time and learn as we go. We can't possible digest all of the information availble about the church at once. It takes time to learn.

[sjdawg]

Reelmormon, as a convert did you feel betrayed when you found out about polyandry? I hope not but I think that is the potential risk the LDS Church faces. Personally, I find both polygamy and polyandry to be troubling concepts

[sjdawg]

I prefer that we learn a little at a time and learn as we go. We can't possible digest all of the information availble about the church at once. It takes time to learn.

I agree with that. I believe the Church shouldn't be baptizing new members quite as quickly as they sometimes do (which I think today is actually slower than it used to be in many cases....anecdotal experience only. No need to CFR). Potential members need to learn more about the doctrine and even the culture of the LDS church in order to make educated decisions.

[Calm]

This footnote in the Kaitch paper would seem to indicate a reference to polyandry in this BYU Studies paper:

42 Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the

Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900,”

BYU Studies 14:3– (Spring 1974), 291–314. Irving notes that

the Church, as established in 1830, “was hardly a finished

product. Although the new faith possessed distinctive charac-

teristics, many significant aspects of Mormon thought and

practice were revealed and developed in the years that fol-

lowed” (p. 291). He notes the concern at the time that women

“risked their exaltation by being sealed to those who might

not accept the gospel” (p. 306).

[Calm]

Reelmormon, as a convert did you feel betrayed when you found out about polyandry? I hope not but I think that is the potential risk the LDS Church faces. Personally, I find both polygamy and polyandry to be troubling concepts

On the other hand, as soon as the talk turns to eternal marriage, I am troubled by the idea that men and women have to choose which of their spouses during mortality they 'loved the best' (or whatever other standard for choice there is) in order to be sealed eternally to only one individual.

[Calm]

I agree with that. I believe the Church shouldn't be baptizing new members quite as quickly as they sometimes do (which I think today is actually slower than it used to be in many cases....anecdotal experience only. No need to CFR). Potential members need to learn more about the doctrine and even the culture of the LDS church in order to make educated decisions.

The David O. McKay bio by Prince and Wright contains info on a survey taken in the 50s that indicated that those who converted to and stayed active in the Church made the decision to convert after just a few lessons and there was no correlation, IIRC, to retention with longer teaching periods. The Church, on this info, changed to a shorter teaching time in order to make the most of the missionaries and other resources.

I would assume the Church still does studies on how to make missionary work more effective and to keep retention up. If there was a significant change in effectiveness, I think they would change the process. This is of course a statement of faith on my part.