Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Then you might envy me. I will be stopping in Cardston later this month on my way up to Calgary to cover the Mormon History Association Conference.

[Calm]

I should give you a list of people to say 'hi' to for me. If you meet in the Bow Valley chapel (it is right on the southeast corner of the University) for Sunday services, you can see if my ghost is hanging around the library at all.

Be sure and say hi to Jean Blumell for me and tell her and her husband (they are the volunteer coordinators) they better warn us before they hit Provo next time so I can see them as well as my husband.

I'll pm you my name as she might not make the connection otherwise though not too many from Bow Valley have worked at UoC and then moved down to UVU.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I vividly remember Sunday nights in my youth as we sat around the kitchen table and my saintly mother read Church history to us. I was well acquainted with the historical practice of plural marriage, just as I learned early on about the mob atrocities against the Saints in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois.

Most of all, I became acquainted with and marveled at the numerous divine visitations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and others as the groundwork for the Restoration of the gospel was laid.

I feel sorry for those who did not have such an upbringing, and wish that all parents were as careful as my mother in teaching these things to their children. To adapt the words of David McCullough (he was talking about the identity of Americans) our identity as Latter-day Saints is one generation deep. It is so important to pass these things along to the rising generations.

[sjdawg]

Then you might envy me. I will be stopping in Cardston later this month on my way up to Calgary to cover the Mormon History Association Conference.

Enjoy. That's my home town

[sjdawg]

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.

I think that is reasonable assumption to make. I wonder if the baptism level would go down if the investigation phase were longer? I'm not sure what would happen. Either way, some people are very ready to commit after a short period so it may be unfair to expect them to delay baptism

[Scott Lloyd]

I should give you a list of people to say 'hi' to for me. If you meet in the Bow Valley chapel (it is right on the southeast corner of the University) for Sunday services, you can see if my ghost is hanging around the library at all.

Be sure and say hi to Jean Blumell for me and tell her and her husband (they are the volunteer coordinators) they better warn us before they hit Provo next time so I can see them as well as my husband.

I'll pm you my name as she might not make the connection otherwise though not too many from Bow Valley have worked at UoC and then moved down to UVU.

When you do pm me, calmoriah, would you mind giving me some contact information for some Latter-day Saints in Cardston? I intend to do a photo centerspread on Cardston, and I need some folks to converse with to get information for the article.

I'll be covering a Sunday morning MHA event before heading home, though, and I'm not sure I'll make it back down to Cardston in time to attend church.

Add on:

Oops. I realize now you are talking about Calgary, not Cardston.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sjdawg]

When you do pm me, calmoriah, would you mind giving me some contact information for some Latter-day Saints in Cardston? I intend to do a photo centerspread on Cardston, and I need some folks to converse with to get information for the article.

I'll be covering a Sunday morning MHA event before heading home, though, and I'm not sure I'll make back down to Cardston in time to attend church.

Any particular demographic you are hoping to contact?

[Scott Lloyd]

Enjoy. That's my home town

Great. I'll make the same request of you that I did of calmoriah.

[Scott Lloyd]

Any particular demographic you are hoping to contact?

Salt-of-the-earth Latter-day Saints. Other than that, it would run the gamut: young or old, male or female, farmers, professionals, educators, etc.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

As a convert did you find it hard to discover the information ?

Polygamy.... no Polyandry... very much so until the last couple of years.... that was a tough pill. Would have been really easy if the church told me first.. but they didn't

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

How could I argue with polygamy? Abraham isaac and Jacob did it.... odd.. yes but I saw it as part of the restoration of all things. Betrayed by polyandry.... Let's say it caught me extremely off guard. The first few people i asked denied it including one apoligist. Don't remember if it was Shields, FAIR, or BOM answerman

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.

amen.... Marry a women already sealed and have kids... they belong to the first husband according to many including Brigham Young

So we did find one obscure source... as Sacred lonliness is not church material neither is FAIR, but the Widstoe one counts. 182 years and one reference.... can anyone be at least humble enough face to face with me and say ..."yeah in all honestly they could have done better" "there should be more then that if no one is hiding anything. "

I have a crazy uncle.. absolute nut. I want noone in the world to know we are related. I say nothing to no one. If someone asks, i tell them but I don't take any chances if they don't know. Is it intentional? absolutely. I could do better. I could.

So can the church. Why am I the bad guy for wanting the church that I love and give my life to to trust me enough to tell me hard things. when in fact it turns out that not telling me was really what made it hard.

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[Calm]

Salt-of-the-earth Latter-day Saints. Other than that, it would run the gamut: young or old, farmers, professionals, educators, etc.

We know (knew, most have moved but may have had family in the area still) more people outside of Cardston and I assume for your purpose you need actual residents.

We had a lot of ward members who had family down in the area, contacting a local bishop probably would give your references....of course you can just contact a Cardston bishop rather than a Calgary bishop, lol. I think it's bedtime...

If you get a chance, be sure and go through the temple (Cardston), absolutely beautiful, my favourite.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[sjdawg]

Salt-of-the-earth Latter-day Saints. Other than that, it would run the gamut: young or old, male or female, farmers, professionals, educators, etc.

Ok. I can probably help out. I still know lots of people there. The most common profession there is likely school teacher or tradesperson. Not a huge variety of career options in a town that size. I will try and think of some appropriate people and PM you

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[DBMormon]

I can handle flaws, I really can. I read Fawn Brodie's No man knows my history before I was baptized. I handled it, actually relatively easy. Found answers. What has caused the faith crisis for me several times over the years was that it wasn't the church telling me. It was my extra study and research. After a while it got frustrating. The issue don't bother me

It is the lack of those issues and in some cases as shown absolute zero discussion on troubling things. that bothers me... right or wrong it does.

the other is everyone runs to defend it and no-one ever says hey I won't go there to the extent you are but your right, they could and should of done better

[Calm]

Don't remember if it was Shields, FAIR, or BOM answerman

Highly unlikely it was FAIR.

[Calm]

I have no problem saying they could have done better....should have? I don't know, I don't do hypotheticals too often just on principle as we can't know how it would have turned out, but my totally uneducated guess is that it would have been better to have mentioned it briefly in the Institute manual with maybe Widstoe's comment attached.

However, I am also aware of some other issues that have been mentioned (such as JS's use of a gun during the Martyrdom) in church manuals, etc. and people still have the same complaint about them as you do about this.

Plus polygyny and polyandry have the additional current problem of fundamentalists attempting to find justification for their practices. I have heard of several instances where polygamists have attended single dances in order to find young women to convert to their practice and marry. In some of these cases they are successful. Claims would be made that the Church approved but couldn't say so out right because of legal issues. Any mention of plural marriage in official publications could be pointed to in this form of justification.

BTW, Widtsoe's book wasn't obscure when it was published nor for I would say quite some time afterwards (I remember it on my grandmother's shelf, he was a very popular writer) even if it might be considered obscure now since it hasn't been published for quite some time save in digital collections, I believe.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Reel,

The reason you won't win this debate with me is because it's not really a debate. You and I have different values and your recent crisis colors your perceptions, just as my lack of recent crisis... uh, doesn't color mine? Yes. That.

But here's the funny thing.

To others in your ward, you are the Church. You are the public face of the Brethren.

If you think the Church should be doing something different - well, here's your chance. You've been assigned stewardship over many souls. You've been tasked to keep them safe, and provide an environment where they can grow in faith. Why don't you start doing something like, say, assigning monthly Sacrament talks on difficult topics? Or even giving them?

Just a thought.

[Calm]

Firesides would likely be more appropriate. I am aware of a number of such on historical events, including controversial ones, as well as ones specifically addressing 'apologetics'.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

Highly unlikely it was FAIR

like i said.... don't remember. I did have a FAIR person about a year and a half ago write me an email on a question about a book.... don't remeber what book. FAIR rep said what was in the book was false but then went adhominem and said they author was this and that and couldn't be trusted. I wished I had saved the email as it would have been the perfect thing to add in the thread where a ad hominem attack by FAIR was requested. Also years back they are who told me masonry went back to solomon, had to have been a decade ago, so i realize bad info is not always about lying, but about lack of information. My point being is that FAIR isn't perfect though they seem very on top of it these days. I do have issues with the precept that they must defend every jot and tittle to the nth degree and can not acknowledge any faults in the church as that does take a little credibility away and is the crux critics go to. Also please don't make this thread about FAIR, if you take issue with this paragraph anyone, start a thread and use my paragraph to lead it off.

If you think the Church should be doing something different - well, here's your chance. You've been assigned stewardship over many souls. You've been tasked to keep them safe, and provide an environment where they can grow in faith. Why don't you start doing something like, say, assigning monthly Sacrament talks on difficult topics? Or even giving them?

I have. Fireside on the translation of the BOM last year. Treasure digging and seer stones but told in a positive light. But because the church hasn't addressed polyandry at all, that would now be too big a risk to say anything. The church will have to do that. The only way that works now is to put a blip here and a blip there in some of the manuals for younger folks and innoculate them. If I tell the congregation in a sacrament meeting, that Joseph was sealed to the wives of other men in adoptive sealings even, that may not go over well.

Most of the members didn't even know he had a seer stone before getting the plates until that fireside.

I am not afraid to broaden horizons but must be certain it will not send them running. It becomes really difficult to share anything the church hasn't shared.

I don't simply want to expose them to perceived problematic issues. I want to innoculate them from future faith crisis. That is the agenda. And to do that one must be gradual and can not force anything until a opening for it occurs.

.

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Now back to it.

The fact that they have intentional held back truth doesn't make the church not true. The issue is that when they do so we feel it a divine call to run up and justify it with some other reason. "The manual was changed to make it more directed to the a individual wife who is reading it" The church can't take a chance condoning the conduct of fundamentalist groups" "The church is trying to conserve space and can only talk about so many things"

think about this.

Founding Prophet is sealed to over 30 women some of which are married already. A section of D&C (132) is devoted to this principle. Salvation at the time is based on obedience to it (Brigham Young says so). It is a major reason behind the persecution and martyrdom of the prophet - and we say little of polygamous and nothing of polyandrous history.

Thomas Marsh leaves the church. He leaves over reasons none of which are really the one given by the church in the milk and strippings story beacuase Bro. Pratt i believe it was or Bro. Hyde who started the false reason.

type in "milk strippings" and see what shows up on LDS.ORG.

so a gigantic true principle and huge part of our early history is ignored while a false reputation ruining gossip is everywhere.

That seems odd doesn't it? seems backward?

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

and for those who assume I am a trouble maker. This is the only board I participate in. This is the only forum in the real world or virtual world where I debate these issues. I do not have members to my home and bring all this up. This is the place, and an appropriate one I think, where one can let his guard down a bit and share tough things and get feedback on how well that feeling, concern, belief, fits into the larger truth. It has helped me rid myself of several concerns and it has reinforced that some are valid (to me). If not here then where? if I didn't participate here I would be in much worse spiritual shape. So please take what I say in that context.

[Tacenda]

I hear ya "saved by grace after all I didn't do"! But how does one keep the fire burning under a testimony that keeps getting tinkled on by uncovering real church history over and over again because it seems too hard to believe, but is?

[DBMormon]

What keeps me coming back? the awesome spiritual experiences that testify of the fact that the church is more then some fraudulent organization. That buried beneath the problems and issues is truth supernal; truth sublime

If I sat down with you and told you the two dozen experiences I have had you would understand why spirtually my testimony is rock solid. Logically, I struggle at times and it gives me pause at times. It would have been easier to grow up in the church or any faith for that matter before the internet, but it is what it is. So I try to state things the way I see them in hopes that others can convincce me to see things in a better light. I would say that the 2-3 biggest spiritual experiences are evidence to me beyond a doubt that at it's root the church is true. That to me means the Book of mormon is true, The church has the ordinances and the authority. Outside of that most anything can be debated and discussed. Life isn't cut and dry... so why would the church be?

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[sjdawg]

What keeps me coming back? the awesome spiritual experiences that testify of the fact that the church is more then some fraudulent organization. That buried beneath the problems and issues is truth supernal; truth sublime

If I sat down with you and told you the two dozen experiences I have had you would understand why spirtually my testimony is rock solid. Logically, I struggle at times and it gives me pause at times. It would have been easier to grow up in the church or any faith for that matter before the internet, but it is what it is. So I try to state things the way I see them in hopes that others can convincce me to see things in a better light. I would say that the 2-3 biggest spiritual experiences are evidence to me beyond a doubt that at it's root the church is true. That to me means the Book of mormon is true, The church has the ordinances and the authority. Outside of that most anything can be debated and discussed. Life isn't cut and dry... so why would the church be?

I really appreciate and respect this perspective. When I was first leaving the LDS Church many people provided me with reasons why they stay (and why I should stay). Most were of the "I don't know of anything better" or "It's a good way to raise a family" variety. Only one friend said he stays because of spiritual experiences he has had. To me, he was the only one with a truly valid reason and he is the one who's opinon I respected the most.

We can disagree on history (or our interpretation of history) but I will never intentially try to invalidate your spiritual experience's.

[Calm]

The issue is that when they do so we feel it a divine call to run up and justify it with some other reason.

But from the way you've described your position, it comes across to me that you feel almost a divine call to run up and justify telling history with your own reasons. How is that different than coming up with reasons not to tell it? For example, you are saying it needs to be told because not telling it has caused harm to people's faith. How is this different from others who have seen fundamentalists use examples of plural marriage in church history to convert others to the practice, thus resulting in their excommunications? How is this loss of faith any less important then the loss of faith you are concern about?

======

It is hard for me to get at all excited about polygyny as I grew up hearing about its history in our family, I read the D&C 132 that spoke about Joseph being commanded and it being one of the questions that was consistently brought up by nonmembers on hearing I was LDS. As far as polyandry, after reading the articles out there I can understand the reluctance because there is not enough details available to address the questions that are raised...the main one being 'why in the world did Joseph do this?'. The problem is that neither Joseph nor anyone else directly involved gave any reason, the closest ones we know about are the ones where he tested couples by asking but did not follow through. So was it simply an extended test or something else? There just seems no reason to teach polyandry in a church setting as it can't be fit into any slot without guessing. Teaching it would simply give rise to folklore reasons as occurred with polygyny or the priesthood restriction. My particular contribution to that would be my guess based on the timing of the polyandric sealings is that he was trying to fulfill the commandment while accommodating Emma's feelings (and possibly his own original distaste for the idea if he was anything like others he taught the principle) after the difficulty with his first attempt with Fanny Alger. Notice there are no stories out there about Emma being upset in any of the polyandric sealings, only with the unmarried women. And IIRC the story of the angel appearing appears after he starts being sealed to unmarried women so perhaps the angel was scolding him about not really committing to the commandment. However, since no one gives any explanation, that explanation has no inherent value to it. It certainly isn't of value in teaching any spiritual principle.

Now teaching it in a history class would be different, but the Church doesn't put on history classes nor is its purpose to teach history, so you have a gap there that has only filled by occasional references in books such as Widtsoe, articles such as the BYU studies in 74....such material generally is not passed on by its consumers from generation to generation as it doesn't teach principles (since one doesn't know the reason for it and can only guess) and since it wasn't a practice that continued, it is not part of a continuing heritage such as something like holiday celebrations are where explanation of why we have them provide historical background and ties between those of the past with the present. Polyandry is therefore primarily an obscure curiosity in the context of the spiritual role of the Church...that is until it gets picked up by antis and used as evidence that JS was immoral, the Church is a fraud etc. Once it gets noticed in this way, it becomes necessary to address it. But if the reason is to protect the Saints, then I think it is a valid approach to measure how much benefit comes from sharing info with the cost of doing so. Now perhaps the leaders have made the wrong choice in the past but I am not in a position to judge that. And I don't see how you are either.

I think, however, that the way the leaders have currently decided to handle history by putting out all the documents possible relating to JS for historians to deal with is the best way to produce a solid academic approach to dealing with history as opposed to narrative (narrative being the storytelling use of historical context to teach principles, doctrine, practices, etc). Eventually this will provide enough vigorous discussion to filter into the general public consciousness as have academic discussions about Jefferson and Hemmings, for example. Whether this will be sufficient or it will be decided that something more immediate needs to be done beyond what is taking place now (being talked about by individuals and organizations like FAIR as they see the need as well as being published in books like In Sacred Loneliness and RSR)....again, I don't see how anyone but the church leaders can make a global decision as they are going to be the only ones able to collect and evaluate the impact of current level of discussion.

=====

In regards to narratives such as the Marsh cream story or the WoW version of Joseph's leg surgery....this doesn't trouble me personally because I've long been aware of the practice of using historical figures in teaching principles. I vividly remember being taught about George Washington and the cherry tree in first grade (because the teacher served cherry jello which I adored). I wasn't shocked when I found out later it wasn't considered historically accurate (I've seen it still being used on teaching sites btw). It not being actual history doesn't lessen its ability to teach a principle. The question is whether that value is tainted because it is just a story. And I've got to wonder how many adults actually believe that GW never told a lie based on being told this story as a child.

Then you have stories like those that have been attached to the New Testament with the miracle stories of Christ's infancy and childhood or the stories of the saints. Unlikely to have happened in many cases, but does this prevent one from recognizing the value they have had for some of the faithful over the years?

And now we have stories like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Wonder if that will have any socially redeeming features besides being fun? Do you think that because it attaches nonhistory to history it should be protested?

For me the last example is much like the first save the content is more valuable because it is trying to teach how to live a faithful life. There are times when I think there is a need to attach a story to a real time and place and therefore it needs to be told accurately. Other times I think fables or myths (ritualized stories) are okay even when using real people because for myself I do not attach the myths to the actual people even though they are the actors in the ritualized story. I am familiar with how this has been done over the centuries and I see church narrative as much the same thing. I am concerned with the teaching, not the actual events. I don't make judgements about the real people based on the plot of the narrative.

However, I do recognize that not everyone does this, that many assume these days that narratives are interchangeable with historical constructions and so care needs to be taken to differentiate between what we (believe we) know took place and what has been 'created' in the narrative. I wish we could teach the idea of narratives because I love the richness of storytelling, of taking something mundane and creating something new and mysterious out of it but our culture isn't likely to nurture that concept. It seems to insist on seeing narratives as history (look at what happened with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code) and people don't want to take the time to educate themselves to be able to tell the difference even though history is being used constantly to create narratives (look at all the historical fiction and movies "based on real events"). And the Church curriculum doesn't make the connection with narrative and its lessons that contain stories including real people either. Because of these reasons, I do think it would be a good idea to remove stories like Marsh's from the manual and not use Joseph's surgery as an example of the truth of the WoW (though it could be used for demonstrating the value of self-discipline....) though I don't see either disappearing from members' narratives any time soon even if they are removed from church manuals. Narratives tend to collect a lot of inertia over the years.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

I really appreciate and respect this perspective. When I was first leaving the LDS Church many people provided me with reasons why they stay (and why I should stay). Most were of the "I don't know of anything better" or "It's a good way to raise a family" variety. Only one friend said he stays because of spiritual experiences he has had. To me, he was the only one with a truly valid reason and he is the one who's opinon I respected the most.

We can disagree on history (or our interpretation of history) but I will never intentially try to invalidate your spiritual experience's.

Thank you, that's all I ask, is for a seat at the table and to have a chance to share the way I see it, and to read and try to understand how each of you see it. Thank You