Shocking Omission From Church History Makes Me Angry

[why me]

I feel the same way. I have no faith whatsoever in the critics of the LDS church. I have been LDS all my life, and during the past 10+ years I have had numerous in-depth conversations with critics of the church. I have had many, many experiences with "cognitive dissonance," or what my dad refers to as "yikes" moments. But each time I hear something against the church, I study it out for myself to find out either if it is true (many times it was either completely false or a distorted version of the truth -- to make the church bad), or if it was important in determining whether the church is true or not. I discovered that all of those "shocking" things that critics like to use to "disprove" our church are either incorrectly represented, or else are not relevant to the question of the truth of the church. My testimony now is much, much stronger than it was before ever conversing with LDS critics. They had no idea they were helping me build my faith in the LDS church.

At times it is not the critic's fault. They have also been influenced by what they have read and accepted it without questioning the premises. It is amazing how many exmormons became exmormons because of Compton's book or a book by Quinn. They believe what they want to believe. They also have a stake in their new belief system since some have led family members away also. Do I blame them? No. But I do blame the professional critics who write the negative pieces about the lds church in such a way that they will cast doubt in a member's mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

I read through a sunday school manual used by a local protestant church, it mentioned nothing of the rapes, murders, incest, and deception from their history. It totally glossed over the story of Lot, Davids fall, and a number of other disturbing events. There was no mention of the now infamous talking donkey, no mention of Pauls murderous past, the list goes on and on. One is left with the impression that they are trying to sugar coat their religion for their unsuspecting new converts. I suspect that once the new lambs find out the truth, they will start to leave in droves.

You forgot to mention the public, formal apology of the Southern Baptist Convention just a few years ago (1995) for having justified slavery in the antebellum South and then segregation after the Civil War -- using the Bible to make it seem O.K. Or the public apology not so long ago by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope John Paul II) for their anti-Jewish theology and actions.

[Stargazer]

Perhaps. Joseph loved her a lot. That much is certain. He stated that he would be willing to go to hell for her. That is a love that is quite powerful.

And I do believe Brigham Young was quoted as having once said that that was where he would have to go get her.

Rather uncharitably, I believe. And I think I heard that when Eliza Snow heard that he had said that, she chewed him OUT.

Sorry, no source. Maybe it didn't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[cassieblanca]

At times it is not the critic's fault. They have also been influenced by what they have read and accepted it without questioning the premises. ... Do I blame them? No. But I do blame the professional critics who write the negative pieces about the lds church in such a way that they will cast doubt in a member's mind.

It's true, a lot of that stuff sounds really convincing. I had times of cognitive dissonance where I really had to look at my faith and think "Could this really be true?" It took me a while to realize that I have to first study out the source and then figure out how important the info is. I have found that sometimes they just put a source to look like they know what they are talking about - but when you actually look up the source (in context) you can find out what it really says. Generally just looking at whatever it is in context is enough to realize that the critics have got nothing.

[why me]

It's true, a lot of that stuff sounds really convincing. I had times of cognitive dissonance where I really had to look at my faith and think "Could this really be true?" It took me a while to realize that I have to first study out the source and then figure out how important the info is. I have found that sometimes they just put a source to look like they know what they are talking about - but when you actually look up the source (in context) you can find out what it really says. Generally just looking at whatever it is in context is enough to realize that the critics have got nothing.

That has been my experience also. Members on the internet need to develop good critical thinking skills, through questioning what they read, to actually grasp the truth or real intent.

[cassieblanca]

That has been my experience also. Members on the internet need to develop good critical thinking skills, through questioning what they read, to actually grasp the truth or real intent.

Yes, exactly! I have an aquaintance I have performed music with for the last two year or so, and just this year she and her husband left the church. She said it was because they found out about DNA evidence, but they have a gay daughter and I wonder if that isn't the real reason they wanted out of the church. I know that generally critics who "do their homework" so to speak don't even try to use the DNA argument anymore. My aquaintance didn't want to hear about that though. Concerning looking at the issue and developing thinking skills, looking at both sides of the issue, I read a quote recently that I liked. Something like "If you only listen to one side of a conversation, no wonder it sounds one-sided."

[Tacenda]

I wonder, if there were a study to determine why people leave the church, what reason would be the most common? Anyone care to take a guess?

Edited September 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

The story was that Emma had pushed a pregnant Eliza Snow down the stairs of her home and caused her to miscarry. It left bad feelings about Emma and portrayed a picture of contention among the sisters.

But when I found out the reports were all second hand. Eliza didn't miss a day of teaching school during her supposed miscarriage. And those who were there in the home first hand did not report or believe the rumor I was angered, my faith in that particular report made me fell betrayed.

CFR that this story is perpetrated by "critics" of the Church.

While it may have once been bandied about by "critics" (i.e. anti-mormons), I've rarely seen a modern critic who cared about making Emma look bad, let alone lie about it. Emma didn't like polygamy and didn't follow Brigham Young. Why would modern-day "critics" need to marginalize her? Second of all, I suspect the story has lasted so long in the culture because it dramatizes elements of Nauvoo that we know are correct (Joseph Smith's plural wives living in the same house as Emma, Emma's anger about polygamy, Emma's temper, etc.)

So critics obviously didn't make the story up, and I suspect they're not the ones that have told it the most (Orson Scott Card even dramatizes the story in his novel of Nauvoo-era historical fiction "Saints"; that's the only place I've ever heard the story told other than having it discredited in books on polygamy). So who, exactly, are you angry at?

And third of all, the true information about the story has been freely available for quite some time, so it's not the critics' fault that you just believed what you heard and didn't do your homework.

BYU Studies - Emma and Eliza and the Stairs

Several elements in various combinations comprise one of the most oft-told tales of Mormon biography history. The characters involved are Joseph Smith, his wife Emma Hale Smith, and a plural wife, usually Eliza Roxcy Snow. The place is invariably Nauvoo, the scene either the Homestead residence of the Smiths or the later roomier Mansion House. The time, if specified, is either very early morning, or night, in 1843, April or May, or in 1844. The action involves two women in or coming out of separate bedrooms. Emma discovers the other woman in the embrace of or being kissed by Joseph. A tussle follows in which Emma pulls the woman’s hair, or hits her with a broom, or pushes her down stairs, causing either bruises, or a persistent limp, or, in the extreme versions, a miscarriage. There may or may not be a witness or witnesses.

The anecdote is told orally more often than it is written, with details of time, scene, costume (one account has Eliza in her nightclothes), action, motivation, and results being adjusted according to the attitudes of the teller. As generally related, it takes the form of a short story, with setting, plot, and characters; and it displays the characteristics of easily defined formula fiction: the characters are “good” or “bad”, their motives oversimplified, the action predictable, the results inevitable. It is the stuff of legend, a folk tradition, perpetuated orally, and likely to continue.

For the student of Mormon culture, the prevailing questions about this story are: Why was it told and why is it still told? What does the telling say about the tellers? What “truths of the human heart,” their own human hearts, do people reinforce through the telling? But for the biographers of Joseph Smith, or Emma Hale Smith, or Eliza Roxcy Snow, there is a more awkward problem: How did the story get its start, and which details, if any, are based on fact?

Edited September 17, 2012 by cinepro

[Thinking]

This brings me to one fact that I learned that was dubious at best. I believed if for many years and didn't doubt it. Finally when I read Bushman's account with all reports and context I was shocked that I had swallowed it whole and it altered me perceptions of an important early figure in Church history.

The story was that Emma had pushed a pregnant Eliza Snow down the stairs of her home and caused her to miscarry. It left bad feelings about Emma and portrayed a picture of contention among the sisters.

But when I found out the reports were all second hand. Eliza didn't miss a day of teaching school during her supposed miscarriage. And those who were there in the home first hand did not report or believe the rumor I was angered, my faith in that particular report made me fell betrayed.

I now have a great deal of trouble believing critics of Mormonism without having first researched and verified their claims because they are prone to omit important details that put the history in a more complete light as opposed to one sided information designed to promote faith in their view.

I no longer have as much faith in the critics of the LDS Church.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Critics did not create the story about Emma and Eliza, and Bushman's book was published in 2005.

[Alan]

Are you aware of the account of what happened when Emma's sons returned home after doing missionary work among the Mormons of Utah? I do not have access to the source at the moment but I recall what happened. They were confronted by all the documentary evidence which Brigham Young was all too glad to present to them. They went home and confronted Emma about it. Not long afterward, one of the sons (I do not at the moment recall which one; I can't at the moment recall whether it was David or Alexander but I remember it was not Joseph III) ended up in an asylum.

Also, consult The True Latter-Day Saints' Herald, Vol.1, No. 1. Read the entire original issue very carefully. It flatly admits to Joseph's practice of plural marriage and gives that as the reason why the Lord destroyed him or allowed him to be killed, even though he (as the paper described it) "abhorred and repented of this iniquity before his death." I am serious about that. It has also been reprinted by critics of the Church a number of times as well so I am sure you can easily find a copy for around $2.50 USD or so.

I am aware of the account of Joseph's sons in Utah. It was David who ended up in an asylum, but that was years later and nothing to do with his Utah experience. His life story is very sad and his poor wife endured much heartache.

It is worth noting that both JSIII and Alexander were staunch defenders of their fathers monogamy all their lives as they served on the first presidency of the RLDS Church. David too for that matter.

Just because people said that Joseph was a polygamist, doesn't make it true.

It is worth remembering that much of the evidence stating Joseph's polygamy also details the children he fathered. However, DNA analysis has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he fathered no children apart from those with Emma. This is, i believe, a very significant development.

Joseph also stated before his death that he had only one wife. I believe him when he said he saw the Father and the Son, I believe when he said he translated the plates, and I believe him when he says he was not a polygamist.

As I have said before; he may well have been sealed to a number of people, but that does not constitute a marriage.

[Storm Rider]

I am aware of the account of Joseph's sons in Utah. It was David who ended up in an asylum, but that was years later and nothing to do with his Utah experience. His life story is very sad and his poor wife endured much heartache.

It is worth noting that both JSIII and Alexander were staunch defenders of their fathers monogamy all their lives as they served on the first presidency of the RLDS Church. David too for that matter.

Just because people said that Joseph was a polygamist, doesn't make it true.

It is worth remembering that much of the evidence stating Joseph's polygamy also details the children he fathered. However, DNA analysis has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he fathered no children apart from those with Emma. This is, i believe, a very significant development.

Joseph also stated before his death that he had only one wife. I believe him when he said he saw the Father and the Son, I believe when he said he translated the plates, and I believe him when he says he was not a polygamist.

As I have said before; he may well have been sealed to a number of people, but that does not constitute a marriage.

David's mental problems were not related in any way with his travels in Utah is accurate.

You may want to review additional comments by Joseph in regards to his other wives. As far as living in an open manner with any of these additional wives, I am not aware of any evidence that could support such a statement. It is true that none of the children of women who claimed to have had children by Joseph have been supported by DNA evidence; at least as far as those tested. The last I heard they had not finished testing for each claim.

What is evident to me is that Joseph was never so comfortable with the doctrine of plural wives that he openly taught it to all the saints. This silence to the majority of the saints allowed for some to abuse it, some to decry Joseph's practice, and others to lose faith when evidence was shown.

[Walden]

I wish more people would do this. I had a conversation with a born-again Christian last week about personal revelation. I was talking about finding out if something is true by praying about it and asking God to help us know. She insisted that we are to judge a book, not by prayer, but by what's contained in it. She insisted that her faith is in the Bible and in other Christian ministers whose faith is only in the Bible. I said, why only the Bible and not the source of the Bible?! And what is the point in believing in a powerful but loving Heavenly Father but not being willing to ask him to help you find and understand the truth? And so many people leave the church because they're shocked by finding out something that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did or said. It's not THEIR church - it's the Lord's, and it is the Lord in whom our faith should lie. When I read the B of M and prayed to know if it was true, the Lord knew all the "shocking" history of the church when he answered my prayer - even though I did not. Now I know the history (well... not all of it...) and I am still asking if the Book of Mormon is true - and the Lord is still telling me yes.

Personally, I think that you give too much credit to the idea that large numbers of people leave the church "because they're shocked by finding out something that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did or said." The inconsistencies, dubious innuendos and gray areas regarding church history, much of it perpetuated by the LDS church itself (in an attempt to whitewash some of it's history....think MMM), are usually not the first crack in a believing members testimony. From my experience, many of the 'warts" of LDS history are usually uncovered after a believing member has already experienced initial doubts or failures in their tesimony, and then when they begin to dig deeper into their religion, they come across some of the more unsavory history of the LDS faith.

For me, I struggled with my testimony my entire life. I prayed daily, sometimes multiple times a day, studied the Book of Mormon, D&C, Bible, etc, intently, fasted regularly, studied church history (even traveled to Palmyra and Nauvoo) and literally begged the lord for a testimony of the truthfulness fo the LDS church. I never did get a testimony of the church's truthfulness or the truthfulness of the prophet Joseph Smith.

My reason for leaving was as basic as a failure of Moroni's promise. I did not really delve into the critical history of the LDS church until I had already left the church (internet wasn't as big then as it is now). However, the inconsistencies that I uncovered in church history while studying both critics and apologists, after I had already checked out of the LDS church, did fortify my personal feelings that the LDS church was not what it appeared to be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I no longer have as much faith in the critics of the LDS Church.

I get it.

Funny. This is really great.

[cinepro]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Critics did not create the story about Emma and Eliza, and Bushman's book was published in 2005.

That was my initial thought, but if you read the BYU Studies article I linked above, it points out that the story was initially "popularized" by its publication in an 1886 an "anti-Mormon polemic", and then later in Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" in 1945.

They may have just been putting the folklore into print, but there you have it.

Edited September 17, 2012 by cinepro

[why me]

However, the inconsistencies that I uncovered in church history while studying both critics and apologists, after I had already checked out of the LDS church, did fortify my personal feelings that the LDS church was not what it appeared to be.

What are those inconsisttencies? On a different thread, we have shown that much historical data are in various manuals that are studied by the younger generation. For example, in the student manual for Church History in the Fulness of TImes.

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual

[why me]

The inconsistencies, dubious innuendos and gray areas regarding church history, much of it perpetuated by the LDS church itself (in an attempt to whitewash some of it's history....think MMM), are usually not the first crack in a believing members testimony.

What is wrong with this interpretation found in church study manuals;

Mountain Meadows Massacre

The same week that Captain Van Vliet appeared in Salt Lake City, a tragic event took place nearly three hundred miles to the south; it can best be understood in the context of the war hysteria surrounding the approach of federal troops to Utah. As soon as it was known that an army was coming, George A. Smith, who was responsible for the southern settlements, went to southern Utah to mobilize troops and put that region on war alert.¹⁰

About this same time the Fancher Train—an emigrant company composed of several families from Arkansas and a group of horsemen who called themselves the Missouri Wildcats—made its way through central Utah. They were taking the southern route to California because of the lateness of the season.¹¹Since Utah was under martial law, the party was unable to buy grain and supplies. Some of the travelers, however, pilfered from local farmers. Some also boasted about participating in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith, and other mob actions against the Mormons. A few local settlers connected the group from Arkansas with the recent brutal murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in that state. Some of the Saints thought this party was a scouting or reconnoitering party in advance of the federal army.¹²

The Indian problem in southern Utah complicated these circumstances. The Saints had endeavored to cultivate good relationships with the Indians, but there was still danger. The Indians distinguished between the “Mericats” (any Americans traveling through Utah), whom they entirely distrusted, and the “Mormonee,” whom they generally liked. The possibility existed, however, that the Indians would turn on the Mormon settlers.¹³

On Tuesday, 7 September 1857, a band of Indians attacked the Fancher Train, which was camped thirty-five miles from Cedar City. The emigrants were well armed, and the Indians were forced to retreat.

Meanwhile, the citizens in Cedar City had met and discussed what course to pursue relative to the Fancher Train. Some of those with quicker tempers argued that the emigrants should be destroyed. They were afraid the emigrants might join a California-based army and fight against the Saints as they had publicly threatened to do. It was decided to dispatch a messenger, James Haslam, to seek the advice of Brigham Young. With little rest or sleep, Haslam reached Salt Lake City in only three days and obtained a letter from President Young urging the Saints to let the emigrants go in peace. As Haslam left Salt Lake City, Brigham urged, “Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested.”¹⁴Haslam hastened to Cedar City, arriving on Sunday, 13 September, two days too late.

John D. Lee, who had been appointed “Indian Farmer” by Brigham Young in the absence of Jacob Hamblin, the Indian agent, had been sent to quiet the Indians. He arrived at the Indian camp shortly after the first skirmish between them and the emigrants had occurred. Finding the Indians highly excited, Lee was in the dangerous situation of being the only white man present. He finally convinced the Indians that they would get their revenge, and he was allowed to leave.

Later that night, more Indians arrived at the camp together with a few white men from Cedar City. Sometime during the night, a diabolical plan was concocted, partly to placate the angry Indians. The next day, the morning of 11 September, the whites promised the emigrants protection if they would give up their weapons. The men of the Iron County militia, acting under orders from their local commanders, killed the men, while Indians slew the women and older children, approximately 120 in all. Only eighteen very young children were spared. They were later returned, with government help, to relatives in the East.¹⁵

The dead were buried in shallow graves, and commitments were made to blame the massacre entirely upon the Indians. More than two weeks after the tragedy, John D. Lee was sent to Salt Lake City to report the incident to Brigham Young. Lee placed all the blame on the Indians as had previously been agreed. Later Brigham Young learned that members of the Iron County militia had been full participants in the affair. He offered Governor Alfred Cumming full support in an investigation, but none was undertaken at the time because the Mormons had been pardoned for all alleged crimes in connection with the Utah War.¹⁶

For the next two decades, rumors and allegations continued to circulate, and finally the case came to trial in the 1870s. John D. Lee, a key participant, but certainly not the only officer responsible for the deed, was the only Latter-day Saint indicted. Lee was tried twice. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. Lee was finally convicted in September 1876 and a year later was taken by federal officials to the area of Mountain Meadows and executed.

https://www.lds.org/...ah-war?lang=eng

[Walden]

What is wrong with this interpretation found in church study manuals;

Mountain Meadows Massacre

The same week that Captain Van Vliet appeared in Salt Lake City, a tragic event took place nearly three hundred miles to the south; it can best be understood in the context of the war hysteria surrounding the approach of federal troops to Utah. As soon as it was known that an army was coming, George A. Smith, who was responsible for the southern settlements, went to southern Utah to mobilize troops and put that region on war alert.¹⁰

About this same time the Fancher Train—an emigrant company composed of several families from Arkansas and a group of horsemen who called themselves the Missouri Wildcats—made its way through central Utah. They were taking the southern route to California because of the lateness of the season.¹¹Since Utah was under martial law, the party was unable to buy grain and supplies. Some of the travelers, however, pilfered from local farmers. Some also boasted about participating in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith, and other mob actions against the Mormons. A few local settlers connected the group from Arkansas with the recent brutal murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in that state. Some of the Saints thought this party was a scouting or reconnoitering party in advance of the federal army.¹²

The Indian problem in southern Utah complicated these circumstances. The Saints had endeavored to cultivate good relationships with the Indians, but there was still danger. The Indians distinguished between the “Mericats” (any Americans traveling through Utah), whom they entirely distrusted, and the “Mormonee,” whom they generally liked. The possibility existed, however, that the Indians would turn on the Mormon settlers.¹³

On Tuesday, 7 September 1857, a band of Indians attacked the Fancher Train, which was camped thirty-five miles from Cedar City. The emigrants were well armed, and the Indians were forced to retreat.

Meanwhile, the citizens in Cedar City had met and discussed what course to pursue relative to the Fancher Train. Some of those with quicker tempers argued that the emigrants should be destroyed. They were afraid the emigrants might join a California-based army and fight against the Saints as they had publicly threatened to do. It was decided to dispatch a messenger, James Haslam, to seek the advice of Brigham Young. With little rest or sleep, Haslam reached Salt Lake City in only three days and obtained a letter from President Young urging the Saints to let the emigrants go in peace. As Haslam left Salt Lake City, Brigham urged, “Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested.”¹⁴Haslam hastened to Cedar City, arriving on Sunday, 13 September, two days too late.

John D. Lee, who had been appointed “Indian Farmer” by Brigham Young in the absence of Jacob Hamblin, the Indian agent, had been sent to quiet the Indians. He arrived at the Indian camp shortly after the first skirmish between them and the emigrants had occurred. Finding the Indians highly excited, Lee was in the dangerous situation of being the only white man present. He finally convinced the Indians that they would get their revenge, and he was allowed to leave.

Later that night, more Indians arrived at the camp together with a few white men from Cedar City. Sometime during the night, a diabolical plan was concocted, partly to placate the angry Indians. The next day, the morning of 11 September, the whites promised the emigrants protection if they would give up their weapons. The men of the Iron County militia, acting under orders from their local commanders, killed the men, while Indians slew the women and older children, approximately 120 in all. Only eighteen very young children were spared. They were later returned, with government help, to relatives in the East.¹⁵

The dead were buried in shallow graves, and commitments were made to blame the massacre entirely upon the Indians. More than two weeks after the tragedy, John D. Lee was sent to Salt Lake City to report the incident to Brigham Young. Lee placed all the blame on the Indians as had previously been agreed. Later Brigham Young learned that members of the Iron County militia had been full participants in the affair. He offered Governor Alfred Cumming full support in an investigation, but none was undertaken at the time because the Mormons had been pardoned for all alleged crimes in connection with the Utah War.¹⁶

For the next two decades, rumors and allegations continued to circulate, and finally the case came to trial in the 1870s. John D. Lee, a key participant, but certainly not the only officer responsible for the deed, was the only Latter-day Saint indicted. Lee was tried twice. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. Lee was finally convicted in September 1876 and a year later was taken by federal officials to the area of Mountain Meadows and executed.

https://www.lds.org/...ah-war?lang=eng

Nothing wrong with the account you referenced. Glad to see that the church is bringing this event out into the open.

I can only speak for myself, but growing up in the church in the 80s and 90s (prior to the internet), I first heard about MMM in Institute. After spending my entire youth in the church and attending 4 years of seminary, the first I heard of MMM was after I had left for college. Maybe I had a 20-year run of bad teachers? Likewise, I never heard or was taught about the "head in the hat" method of translation (which seemed curious and was at odds with the method that had been taught in church throughout my youth....with accompanying pics of Joseph pondering over the plates and even translating with Urim and Thummin, but never with his head in a hat), etc, etc, etc....I could go on about all the things that I've learned after leaving the church, but that is not the point.

My point is that even if the church is rather selective in the stories that it uses to portray the history of the faith, in my case, I only learned of these things after I had already left the church. Thus, I don't think that people leave the church solely due to historical innacuraccies, but rather, some other faith crisis that then leads them to learn the true history of the church, which is sometimes enough to push them over the edge.

Again, I did not leave the faith due to historical innacuracies, but rather, due to the failure of Moroni's Promise.

And the cynic in me continues to believe that if it were not for the internet, church history would be even more whitewashed than it has been. The internet has forced the LDS church to reveal some of its warts.

[Verum]

The story was that Emma had pushed a pregnant Eliza Snow down the stairs of her home and caused her to miscarry. It left bad feelings about Emma and portrayed a picture of contention among the sisters.

I now have a great deal of trouble believing critics of Mormonism without having first researched and verified their claims because they are prone to omit important details that put the history in a more complete light as opposed to one sided information designed to promote faith in their view.

I no longer have as much faith in the critics of the LDS Church.

I get it.

I always viewed this as historic gossip at best.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nothing wrong with the account you referenced. Glad to see that the church is bringing this event out into the open.

I can only speak for myself, but growing up in the church in the 80s and 90s (prior to the internet), I first heard about MMM in Institute.

The copyright date in the manual that Why Me referenced is 1989. It's not just now being brought "out into the open."

I suggest you look at the account of Mountain Meadows in B. H. Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church. It might also meet your approval. And Roberts's history was published in 1930 in book form. It appeared serialized in a magazine prior to that.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

The copyright date in the manual that Why Me referenced is 1989. It's not just now being brought "out into the open."

I suggest you look at the account of Mountain Meadows in B. H. Roberts' Comprehensive History of the Church. It might also meet your approval. And Roberts's history was published in 1930 in book form. It appeared serialized in a magazine prior to that.

Well, then apparently, I did have some poor teachers throughout my 20+ years in the church, because I never learned of it or even heard of it in Sunday School, Priesthood or Seminary. Like I said, my first intro to MMM was in Institute in 1993. Glad to see that the church acknolwedged this massacre in the 1989 manual, though it appears to be about 132 years too late.

In the end, I realize that all institutions, organizations, establishments, countries, etc. record and retell their own history in a light that is most gracious and supportive of that institution. My lack of testimony does not rise or fall on the convoluted history of the LDS church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, then apparently, I did have some poor teachers throughout my 20+ years in the church, because I never learned of it or even heard of it in Sunday School, Priesthood or Seminary. Like I said, my first intro to MMM was in Institute in 1993. Glad to see that the church acknolwedged this massacre in the 1989 manual, though it appears to be about 132 years too late.

Apparently you glossed over my post wherein I mentioned the account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in B. H. Roberts's A Comprehensive History of the Church, which was published by the Church in 1930. Roberts's account struck me as being every bit as candid as the one that appeared later in the CES manual.

In the end, I realize that all institutions, organizations, establishments, countries, etc. record and retell their own history in a light that is most gracious and supportive of that institution. My lack of testimony does not rise or fall on the convoluted history of the LDS church.

Be that as it may, I'm not persuaded by complaints that the Church as an institution in the 20th Century and beyond has covered up or whitewashed the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonMason]

I am aware of the account of Joseph's sons in Utah. It was David who ended up in an asylum, but that was years later and nothing to do with his Utah experience. His life story is very sad and his poor wife endured much heartache.

It is worth noting that both JSIII and Alexander were staunch defenders of their fathers monogamy all their lives as they served on the first presidency of the RLDS Church. David too for that matter.

Just because people said that Joseph was a polygamist, doesn't make it true.

It is worth remembering that much of the evidence stating Joseph's polygamy also details the children he fathered. However, DNA analysis has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he fathered no children apart from those with Emma. This is, i believe, a very significant development.

Joseph also stated before his death that he had only one wife. I believe him when he said he saw the Father and the Son, I believe when he said he translated the plates, and I believe him when he says he was not a polygamist.

As I have said before; he may well have been sealed to a number of people, but that does not constitute a marriage.

Why, then, did the RLDS at first admit that he did practice polygamy and was destroyed for it, only to later reverse their position, and then return in recent years to admitting that it happened?

So far as the DNA analysis was going, I was given to understand that it is not yet completed but ongoing. I think that it will be significant that no DNA has been found, if only partially to shut up critics that he was running around bedding everyone's wives. But, the manuscript evidence, the revelations, and the eyewitness accounts in the earliest publications of the RLDS (now CoC) Church fully support that Joseph Smith did indeed practice plural marriage.

By the way, if you look at the way that Joseph Smith worded his last denial you will see something interesting. He was very careful in his wording--for a reason. I will give you a hint. It refers to a time frame but he leaves it open-ended to interpretation. Read it slowly and very carefully--several times, if need be.

[Calm]

Well, then apparently, I did have some poor teachers throughout my 20+ years in the church, because I never learned of it or even heard of it in Sunday School, Priesthood or Seminary. Like I said, my first intro to MMM was in Institute in 1993. Glad to see that the church acknolwedged this massacre in the 1989 manual, though it appears to be about 132 years too late.

It was also in the 68 manual that was used until replaced by the latest one, IIRC. When I get a chance to doublecheck the copy on my shelf downstairs I will. My memory says it was even more detailed than this one, though having some of the same inaccuracies due to not having the level of documentation we have today. I am pretty sure I've quoted it before on the board in part if someone wants to look it up.

[Lightbearer]

Well, then apparently, I did have some poor teachers throughout my 20+ years in the church, because I never learned of it or even heard of it in Sunday School, Priesthood or Seminary. Like I said, my first intro to MMM was in Institute in 1993. Glad to see that the church acknolwedged this massacre in the 1989 manual, though it appears to be about 132 years too late.

In the end, I realize that all institutions, organizations, establishments, countries, etc. record and retell their own history in a light that is most gracious and supportive of that institution. My lack of testimony does not rise or fall on the convoluted history of the LDS church.

Perhaps you were a poor student (obviously since you left the Church) I would also like to add that I first heard of MMM in Seminary (circa 1974-77). Also I have a book that was published as an LDS classic written by Joseph Fielding Smith called "Essentials in Church History" first published in 1922 which devotes Chapter 44 to "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" so I don't think it was 132 years too late. So the Church is not "hiding" anything. As far as teaching MMM in Sunday School or Primary, it is not necessary because the only thing that can be learned is that we should not kill our enemies, but love them that persecute us and I think that is will covered in the scriptures. Also the only thing that is convoluted is the Anti-Mormon version of LDS History.

As for the original OP's comment of finally not trusting critics or Anti-Mormon sources, I never have trusted Anti-Mormons and I never will. They are LIARS and they slander and libel the Church and try to trample under their feet the restored Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were more abrasive and blatant in the past, now in this "enlightened age" of the 21st century in all of it's internet glory they are more subtle, more "kinder and gentler" (at least some are). But the end result is the same, they seek to harden the hearts of the ignorant or decieve the niave who think just because the have "letters" after their name they must be learned and so are an "authority" and we have no right to contradict them. I was exposed to Anti-Mormon drivel when I was in the 8th grade at a Baptist Private school where I was taught what the word "Christian" really meant. But actually my experience in that school was not a negative, on the contrary it perpared me for my Mission where I would be bombared by Anti-Mormon trash and would actually experience the bitterness and Satanic rage this stuff engenders. I came to recognize this stuff for what It really is nothing more than hate propaganda that is designed to harden hearts and stir up contention and strife.Unfortunately for them it often backfires and actually causes people to be stronger (as it did with me in the 8th grade) so truth shall prevail.

[Walden]

And, of course, now the "blame the apostate" arguments begin, though they arrived a little later than I am used to on these boards. Arguments like "Perhaps you were a poor student (obviously since you left the Church)" and admonishments that I did not pick up BH Roberts A Comprehensive History of the Church, which I am sure is such a popular read among LDS youth.

Regarding your comment Lightbearer, that I was a poor student and that is why I left the church, you obviously have not taken the time to read my posts before firing off half-cocked missives regarding my experiences. I left as a result of the failure of Moroni's Promise, and was not exposed to some of the critical historical facts until after I had left the church. It's that simple. Why I offer this information to you, I'm not quite sure, since I am certain that you will now turn around and explain to me how the promise didn't fail, but that I failed. It must be quite comforting to know that you belong to an institution that can absolutely, positively never be wrong, ever.

In teh end, my simple argument is that the church, IMO, teaches it's own history as being too black and white, with too much of a "you are either with us or against us" mentality, and an overwhelmingly defensive mindset that it's own history must be presented in a manner that is only "faith-promoting", because if it isn't, well than, what are we left with (heres a clue, it's called reality). When you leave little room for the gray areas that dominate all of history, don't be surprised that some are shocked by the massive amounts of gray areas that dominate all of history.

But go on and continue to blame the critics. Certainly it is much easier to blame them than to take a long, hard and even critical look at the institution that you have devoted a lifetime to.

And meanwhile, continue to wonder why it is that once faithful LDS people have their testimonies rocked by previously unknown LDS historical facts, and console yourself that it must be because they failed to read BH Roberts A Comprehensive History of the Church, or that they are poor students, as good students spend their lifetime in the church.