Church Censorship Of Truthful History

[sjdawg]

A couple of more thoughts on LDS Church History

1. Do you think the LDS Church is more forthcoming today about its history than it used to be? Less forthcoming? Unchanged? If they have changed their approach why do you think they changed it?

2. I was very surprised by many of the things I learned about Church history and stunned that after growing up in an extremely active household and in a predominantly LDS community that I had never even heard of many of the areas of concern until I was in my early 30's. However, I think I have to accept much of the responsibility for that lack of knowledge. I did not go out of my way to learn any additional information that was not presented in seminary, sunday school, YM's or sacrament meeting. I did study the Book of Mormon but beyond that did not show much inclination for additional study. I was a bit naive in that I expected the LDS Church was presenting the full truth to me. I accept that from the Church's perspective they were teaching me all relevant material.

If nothing else, I would like to see the Church point interested people towards some additional church sanctioned (optional) resources where one could study the more controversial aspects of the past. (Maybe a website referenced in study manuals or something similar). That way the LDS Church would not need to dedicate class to time the issues but at the same time could show themselves to being more open to presenting the history in the best light. It seems like most information is found from resources that are arms-length from the Church (FAIR, etc) or from resources that are antagonistic to the Church. I would like to have the option to study more official LDS viewpoints and interpretations of the real events.

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[DBMormon]

Calmoriah - I want to say thank you for the time you spend addressing my issues, I want you to know I really value that. It means a bunch. I understand all you shared, I dissagree with being able to tall fiction stories about nonfiction people when you are a church as people come to you for truth and you also ruin a man's name with false information at the same time. But I understand it has been done and seen a normal till somewhat recently.

How is that different than coming up with reasons not to tell it?

I think when it comes to churches and salvation, honesty is the best policy (complete and open). Now one might choose carefully when and whee to tell each part of the story but the story needs to be there to be found and not on a third party site.

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?

The only difference I can see is where the accountability fell in each situation. On the polygamous groups twisting the truth or the church holding it back.

How is this loss of faith any less important then the loss of faith you are concern about?

I don't see how people lose faith if you sprinkle in all the truth along the way. I am simply saying we don't do that or at least not well enough. I should be able to go on LDS.ORG or a church manual or a magazine and see these things. The church can have a whole separate site from a link on LDS.ORG or Mormon.ORG where people can read the whole story but in faithful terms. It will be interesting to see what does come of the changes Elder Marlin Jensen says are occuring. Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[wenglund]

I would suggest that a church that is asking a person to dramatically change their life and give 10% of their future income to the organization has an increased responsibility to share information than a used car salesman does.

I believe this view is exactly backwards. The Church has been established for our benefit, not the other way around. Whatever changes we make, is in our interest. Whatever we give back to the Lord in the way of tithes and offers, ought not be a function of expectations from the Church, but because of our own love for our fellow man.

To me, if people viewed the Church correctly, and not backwards, they wouldn't see the Church as "hiding" portions of its history, but rather pragmatically providing us that which is in our best interest in meeting our shared objective of becoming like Christ.

I would also suggest that the Church shouldn't be in the business of persuasion but should be in the business of Truth.

If you understood the Church correctly, you would realize that it is in the business of both.

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).

Again you have it backwards. If the Church has gone out of its way to remind us of anything, it is to spend time reading and doing those things that will fulfill the four-fold mission of the Church.

So, if the LDS Church doesn't provide a complete picture and the LDS Church tells you not to spend time studying anything that might be considered anti-mormon then where exactly is one supposed to gain a complete understanding of the pros and cons of Mormonism?

A complete understanding of the pros and cons of Mormonism actually comes by living the precepts of the gospel.

I would also argue that the marital status, honesty, and morality of early church leaders is very relevant to the truthfullness of the LDS Church today. If one believes that certain actions might seperate one from the promptings of the Holy Ghost or direct revelation then actions contrary to those believes might suggest that leadership was not guided by revelation.

Yet again you don't correctly understand the Church and the role of its leaders. The leaders have been called of God to facilitate the members coming to Christ and becoming like him. Only those things about the leaders that are a part of that facilitation, are pertinent, or ought to be pertinent to us. In other words, if a bit of information about various leaders helps in our becoming like Christ, then it is worthy of note. Otherwise, it is superfluous or irrelevant.

I really wish some people would finally get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sjdawg]

I really wish some people would finally get this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Unfortunately we can't all be as clever and open minded as you Wade.

Edited June 15, 2012 by sjdawg

[DBMormon]

1. Do you think the LDS Church is more forthcoming today about its history than it used to be? Less forthcoming? Unchanged? If they have changed their approach why do you think they changed it?

I see them as more forthcoming with information then in the past at times. I think there have been other times when they were relativey open as well.

2. I was very surprised by many of the things I learned about Church history and stunned that after growing up in an extremely active household and in a predominantly LDS community that I had never even heard of many of the areas of concern until I was in my early 30's. However, I think I have to accept much of the responsibility for that lack of knowledge. I did not go out of my way to learn any additional information that was not presented in seminary, sunday school, YM's or sacrament meeting. I did study the Book of Mormon but beyond that did not show much inclination for additional study. I was a bit naive in that I expected the LDS Church was presenting the full truth to me. I accept that from the Church's perspective they were teaching me all relevant material. If nothing else, I would like to see the Church point interesting people towards some additional church sanctioned (optional) resources where one could study the more controversial aspects of the past. (Maybe a website referenced in study manuals or something similar). That way the LDS Church would not need to dedicate class to time the issues but at the same time could show themselves to bein more open to presenting the history in the best light. It seems like most information is found from resources that are arms-length from the Church (FAIR, etc) or from resources that are antagonistic to the Church. I would like to have the option to study more official LDS viewpoints and interpretations of the real events.

I agree. Put it somewhere official and yet a place members are aware of but have to make an effort to go to. I would also sprinkle it into all the manuals and an article here or there in the church magazines and points given from time to time in talks.

[ERayR]

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

It may be fine for you to want a seat at the table but, as of now, God has not seen fit to call you to one of those positions. Your view is from a 20th/21st century background. Try approaching these issues from a 19th century perspective of a man called to launch God's true church, which you have born testimony of, amidst violent opposition. To me, it then becomes a man trying to implement eternal principles while not quite understanding them. There are several things in the church that have been perfected and implemented, since Joseph Smith, by quiet revelation to subsequent prophets.

It is my, and your, calling to testify that this work, despite the apparent blemishes, is what it is claimed to be. That we have received a spiritual confirmation of its truth.

[DBMormon]

To me, if people viewed the Church correctly, and not backwards, they wouldn't see the Church as "hiding" portions of its history, but rather pragmatically providing us that which is in our best interest in meeting our shared objective of becoming like Christ.

Except a lot of us are backwards and the church is losing folks in large numbers. You can't stand idle and not leve the 99 and go after the 1. These losses are preventable. Also for those who are on the fence about whether the church is true or not - how does the above quote look? like exactly what a fraud church would do. To me truth has nothing to hide from. yes truth is not always black and white or how we use it but in the end truth has nothing to hide from

Yet again you don't correctly understand the Church and the role of its leaders. The leaders have been called of God to facilitate the members coming to Christ and becoming like him. Only those things about the leaders that are a part of that facilitation, are pertinent, or ought to be pertinent to us. In other words, if a bit of information about various leaders helps in our becoming like Christ, then it is worthy of note. Otherwise, it is superfluous or irrelevant.

I would expect that by your standard just about any church including those based on evil and deception would meet your guidelines with one exception, that of a spiritual witness and even with that, many outside our faith have claimed to have received. You then in essence take many of the measuring sticks out of the debate and leave us with no fruits to look at.

Wade, I appreciate your input and hope you know that but i am obviously backwards and dissagree.

[ERayR]

Unfortunately we can't all be as clever and open minded as you Wade.

Sometimes we get too "clever" for our own good and clever ourselves right out of the blessings that could have been ours.

[DBMormon]

It may be fine for you to want a seat at the table but, as of now, God has not seen fit to call you to one of those positions. Your view is from a 20th/21st century background. Try approaching these issues from a 19th century perspective of a man called to launch God's true church, which you have born testimony of, amidst violent opposition. To me, it then becomes a man trying to implement eternal principles while not quite understanding them. There are several things in the church that have been perfected and implemented, since Joseph Smith, by quiet revelation to subsequent prophets

this statement seems to extend further then what we have discussed as you seem to imply more then just the use of stories? are there other examples where I do this?

[DBMormon]

apparent blemishes

that everyone tells you shhhh, you can't mention those. shhhh it is not our call to point those out. shhhhh someone might hear you and determine your a bad mormon.

Yet I have been taught all my life to satnd up for the little guy and to defend truth. If the church is true, nothing will stand in it's way, and you lay it all out, the good bad and ugly, truth will prevail. But if you pick and choose and only show the good stuff, you set people up for dissapointment and dissafection and cause a lot of pain, and you ome off as having something to hide and it looks bad, it's a big reason for all the critical media attention right now. It is part of the reason why other sects call us a cult. Everything about us is all goody two shoes in the church ads and missionary discussion but underneath it all when you peal back the layers is a lot of troubling info..... comes off really bad

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

to add to above. We do interviews. We try not to answer the full questions Examples: Pres. Hinkley on progression and God once a man, Elder Holland on BBC got tongue tied a few times when questions he would rather not address and didn't expect were thrown out there (did better then I would, not critizing him as that was a tough spot,),Elder Jensen trying in the nicest way possible to say we should of and will do better When tough questions are asked, and they are asked because we don't tell the full story up front, we try to stay away from the tough issues. If we put it all out there, on this particular thing, they would leave us alone. They ask because we are not telling and when we answer we do so in a way that they can tell we are hiding something. They are confused, they can't figure out why our story isn't straight. Let's stop sugarcoating and deflecting and lets get past this or the "Mormon Moment" will pass us by.

If we are going to begin to grow in developed countries again like we did in the 70's and 80's then we are going to have to be more upfront and honest in our history and doctrine and not defelct when tough questions are asked.

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[ERayR]

that everyone tells you shhhh, you can't mention those. shhhh it is not our call to point those out. shhhhh someone might hear you and determine your a bad mormon.

Yet I have been taught all my life to satnd up for the little guy and to defend truth. If the church is true, nothing will stand in it's way, and you lay it all out, the good bad and ugly, truth will prevail. But if you pick and choose and only show the good stuff, you set people up for dissapointment and dissafection and cause a lot of pain, and you ome off as having something to hide and it looks bad, it's a big reason for all the critical media attention right now. It is part of the reason why other sects call us a cult. Everything about us is all goody two shoes in the church ads and missionary discussion but underneath it all when you peal back the layers is a lot of troubling info..... comes off really bad

I have never heard anyone try to hush any of this up. I was raised in a small Mormon community, in a believing family that was inactive, and I had heard of most of these things by the time I was 10 years old. What we are not to do is take church meeting and class time away from teaching doctrine to discuss these things. We are also warned that because these things are brought to us by those who are not working in our best interest that to delve into them may be to our own peril. Go ahead discuss them but be sure as we look into them we consider more than the presentations given by critics and anti-Mormons.

I don't understand what you mean by stand up for the little guy.

You seem to be concerned about "how it looks" and you also seem to be accepting and looking at it from the critics and anti-Mormon presentation. You have claimed, and I do not doubt you, to have had spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of this work. That being the case try moving your view in that direction and away from the critic and anti-Mormon view.

[Calm]

that everyone tells you shhhh, you can't mention those. shhhh it is not our call to point those out. shhhhh someone might hear you and determine your a bad mormon.

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion about what "everyone tells you" considering how the Maxwell Institute and FAIR as well as a number of small publishers and others are doing just this, not only by publishing articles and books and websites, but holding conferences and firesides.

add-on: don't you see that you are doing just what you are accusing the Church of doing to Marsh? You are going along with the narrative of "everyone tells you shh" and other set pieces that are not reflective of reality. If you are going to insist on the Church being accurate in its history, you should put more effort into being accurate in your criticism.

Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

to add to above. We do interviews. We try not to answer the full questions Examples: Pres. Hinkley on progression and God once a man, Elder Holland on BBC got tongue tied a few times when questions he would rather not address and didn't expect were thrown out there (did better then I would, not critizing him as that was a tough spot,),Elder Jensen trying in the nicest way possible to say we should of and will do better When tough questions are asked, and they are asked because we don't tell the full story up front, we try to stay away from the tough issues. If we put it all out there, on this particular thing, they would leave us alone. They ask because we are not telling and when we answer we do so in a way that they can tell we are hiding something. They are confused, they can't figure out why our story isn't straight. Let's stop sugarcoating and deflecting and lets get past this or the "Mormon Moment" will pass us by.

If we are going to begin to grow in developed countries again like we did in the 70's and 80's then we are going to have to be more upfront and honest in our history and doctrine and not defelct when tough questions are asked.

We don't grow because of history we grow when the spirit testifies.

[DBMormon]

We don't grow because of history we grow when the spirit testifies

I agree but one has to look into the church first before that happens and there are barriers such as our appearing secretive and weird that causes some to never even take us seriously that was my point

[DBMormon]

I don't understand what you mean by stand up for the little guy.

Those in faith crisis who seem dismissed at times and feel alone

[DBMormon]

"everyone tells you shh"

- speaking about some of the posters on here, not the church

Edited June 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[Tacenda]

It feels like the church is not being totally honest in some respects when it doesn't give the full picture on polygamy. Like when we study the prophets in rs/ph class, and when it's Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, and no mention of any other wives. Had someone told me about Joseph practicing I might still be the strong, faithful, true- blue- thru-&-thru that I use to be. Just sayin. But I had to have it come at me on the internet while looking up some geneology sights.

I do admit that it probably can't be taught in a class atmosphere or some nut case might take it to mean they should practice it also. But Marlin K. Jensen knows what he's talking about, for the younger generation it should be talked about and that might arm them with knowledge so information on the internet wouldn't cause them to leave the church.

[Lightbearer]

If we are going to begin to grow in developed countries again like we did in the 70's and 80's then we are going to have to be more upfront and honest in our history and doctrine and not defelct when tough questions are asked.

This is presumption in the extreme, and denotes a lack of faith in the prophets, seers, and revelators that we have sustained. It shows a total distrust of God and His ability to do His own work. This work (the Church) is not the concoction on men, but is God's own restoration of eternal truth. I am sure there are many things that may seem weird or foolish to the worldly, but just because one cannot understand it does not mean it is untrue. The so-called Polyandary issue to me is a non-issue because it constituted a test of faith for the parties involved. Ironically I think this concept continues in the Church today with the doubting the honesty of the leaders of the Church. It really is the same principle. Does one trust what God has revealed or does one believe the defamation of character that is the S.O.P. of the critics and Anti-Mormons.

Look at the ancient history of the church: Abraham offered his son Issac up as a human sacrifice! How would 21st century "norms" view this? Nephi cut off Laban's head while he was drunk! Jesus allowed Himself proclaimed a King riding into Jerusalem and did and said many things the Jews considered blasphemeous and the Romans may have considered traitorous! Peter had a man and his wife give all they had to the church and when they lied about it both were struck dead! There are lots of examples like this, lots of fodder for Lucifer to twist and to make it appear that men of God did what was evil in the hypocritical eyes of the world. If we are truly Latter-day Saints, if we are the restored Kingdom of God why do we expect to be treated any differently by the devil and his agents? Of course we are going to be painted as lying fools and belonging to a mysterious secretive cult! I feel very sorry for those who claim membership in the Kingdom of God who are unable or unwilling to see the beauty of the glorious restored Gospel of Jesus Christ all they can see are the so-called "historical" blimishes, or those invented by a generation of vipers who call themselves "historians" but in reality seek the destruction of the Lord's Church. History is only as "true" as the one who recounts it. How might the Chief Priests of the Jews record the resurrection of Christ? Would they not claim that His disciples stole His body in an effort to make people believe He rose from the dead? How else would they account for it? Modern science has no explanation other than His disciples made up "old wives tales" and either lied or were delusional! It is rather popular to vilify that which you cannot understand. But if one builds one's testimony on the rock of revelation (spiritual experiences) rather on the sands of the scholarship of "history" or hearsay evidence of unbelievers, then one can avoid the fiery darts of the adversary.

[ERayR]

- speaking about some of the posters on here, not the church

I really can't really think of any of the posters that tell you not to talk about anything on here. They may not agree with you but they don't tell you to be quiet unless you mean they are saying some topics are not for church meetings. I will tell you that. Church is for teaching doctrine no somebody's personal interpretation of historical events.

[Calm]

- speaking about some of the posters on here, not the church

"some of" is not "everyone" even on the board.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Much oblged, sjdawg.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Why do you call it "false reason"? Are you saying the milk strippings story never happened? Do you have evidence to falsify it?

I agree that more than likely there were other factors involved in Marsh's apostasy, but it's my understanding that the milk strippings incident is part of them, perhaps a catalyst that started him on the path to apostasy.

In his public confession of wrongdoing in Salt Lake City prior to his rebaptism, Marsh didn't refer specifically to the milk strippings incident, but he did freely acknowledge his own false pride, which definitely could have included his behavior with regard to that incident.

Add on:

We had a thread on this topic here on the board a while back. Craig Paxton came on saying that the milk strippings story was false. Craig said the story originated with George A. Smith, an apostle under Brigham Young. (Is that who you were thinking of when you said it came from Elder Pratt or Elder Hyde?) Craig essentially accused Elder Smith of lying, saying he "made the story up [out of] whole cloth."

If you follow the thread through, you will see that one of the participants on the thread produced evidence of the story's factual basis.

Thereafter, Craig, to his credit, started a new thread titled "I Like My Crow Medium Rare" in which he acknowledged error. (Craig had been banned from the previous thread.)

Edited June 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sweetpotatoh]

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.

I remember my Mothers love for the Prophet Joseph Smith. She would talk about him with reverence and it was very clear she was thankful for his role in the restoration. She discussed polygamy and Bruce R. McConkie quite often. She lives and breathes the church and it is reflected in her life and those she serves.

I found out more history as I grew up. From a class on Joseph Smith in Institute, where the instructor talked quite candidly about Joseph's use of a peepstone to my own journey by reading and investigating on my own.

I want to say that the spirit converts. Anytime I have struggled I always return to the witness I have received. Despite my limited understanding of the history of the church and the gospel I try to live my life to the best of my ability and continue to pick myself up when I stumble. I also know that if you are struggling get out there and serve. Focusing on the aspects that are hard to understand isn't as important as living the gospel.

[sweetpotatoh]

reelmormon,

I did not mean to imply that you are not serving. I am also glad that you continue to stay because of the witnesses you have received. I didn't learn about Josephs polyandry unti I was in my mid thirties. As I investigated it more I realized that the sealings were paternal in nature. He didn't do it for a sexual reason. The Lord would have destroyed Joseph if he was the sexual predator he is made out to be in some circles. Sexual sin will lead to the loss of the spirit and a stupor of thought. For me it is illogical for Joseph to be a sexual predator. If he was he would have been unable to complete his calling and someone else would have been raised in his stead.