Shocking Omission From Church History Makes Me Angry

[Nevo]

I'm not speaking to universailty, but my parents have the paperback edition from the 70's, IIRC. It has been a long time since I've read it, but I'm not sure how accurate I'd consider BH Roberts' account of the MMM.

Hi Volgadon,

I was thinking of the embossed hardcover set. I didn't realize there was a paperback edition until I saw the photo that Scott linked. It makes sense that more people would have had the paperback version. I don't know anyone who does, but then I'm kind of a homebody.

I have seen a lot of sets of History of the Church though. This is the version we had: http://www.mormonmem..._the_Church.JPG

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, your link is to the History of the Church—a different publication entirely. Although it too is out of print.

OK, the title escaped my notice, and I've removed that link and references thereto from my posts.

But the others are to A Comprehensive History of the Church. And it is incorrect to say it is out of print, when digital downloads are available from at least three booksellers.

Unless you're insisting that only letter-press or hard-copy editions constitute being "in-print." That would be a very narrow definition in this dynamic age when the market for hard-copy editions of printed material is rapidly diminishing even as the demand for electronic editions grows.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it that A Comprehensive History of the Church provides a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I just didn't have access to it when I was growing up.

Why not just look it up?

Your lament that "few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work" assumes that they could easily do so if they were so inclined. I am suggesting that your assumption is faulty. I daresay very few LDS homes have ever had A Comprehensive History of the Church sitting on their shelves. It hasn't been in print for over thirty years and was hardly a bestseller even in the 1960s and 70s.

Multi-volume, hard-copy works selling for hundreds of dollars tend not to be bestsellers.

That said, I think you're wrong about the popular-priced paperback boxed set published by BYU Press. It was very pervasive in Deseret Book stores and other Church book outlets for many years. Perhaps you are too young to have been aware of it. I was already in my adulthood, home from a mission, finishing college.

And calmoriah makes a good point about libraries.

And don't forget the CD-ROM products that included it.

But I think you're largely missing the point about why I brought it up in the first place. It was by way of evidence that the Church was providing candid information about Mountain Meadows clear back in the 1920s and '30s.

Moreover, it was included in a multi-volume history, the publication of which was a landmark event, part of the observance of the centennial of the organization of the Church. It got a lot of attention in the day, and it has been quoted from untold times since and influenced the preparation of later published histories of the Church.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Alan]

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.

I don't know, you'll have to ask the RLDS that question. I'm not an apologist for the RLDS Church.

In terms of the DNA research, I am given to understand that all of the offspring of Joseph's alleged plural wives, including all of those who's mothers "swore" they were Joseph's, have been investigated and all have turned out to have nothing to do with the prophet. The suggestion he was a polygamist and therefore sexually active with these women, is dealt a massive blow by this evidence. It really is very unlikely he wouldn't have fathered children. Especially as he didn't seem to have any trouble fathering children on a regular basis with Emma.

The "eye-witness accounts" you mention are nothing of the sort. Were the witnesses present in the bedroom? No they weren't. To be present at a sealing doesn't qualify in my estimation because a sealing is not a marriage. I was sealed to my parents after we joined the church but I'm not married to them. Brigham Young was sealed to Joseph but no one is claiming this was a marriage either.

Joseph said: "I had not been married scarely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives............. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of adultery, and of having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

I have read and examined the denial (above) many times. I do not see what you apparently see, so please feel free to illuminate.

As Isreal A Smith (the prophets grandson) said in 1956 "Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about.........."

Edited September 18, 2012 by Alan

[Calm]

In terms of the DNA research, I am given to understand that all of the offspring of Joseph's alleged plural wives, including all of those who's mothers "swore" they were Joseph's, have been investigated and all have turned out to have nothing to do with the prophet.

Only those for whom valid DNA tests currently exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not speaking to universailty, but my parents have the paperback edition from the 70's, IIRC. It has been a long time since I've read it, but I'm not sure how accurate I'd consider BH Roberts' account of the MMM.

Here is an online source for it.

Bear in mind that it was written before 1930, and that there is a lot of study that has occurred and information that has been uncovered since then.

But I insist that Roberts, considering the time it was written and the information at his disposal, did a very creditable job.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Volgadon,

I was thinking of the embossed hardcover set. I didn't realize there was a paperback edition until I saw the photo that Scott linked. It makes sense that more people would have had the paperback version. I don't know anyone who does, but then I'm kind of a homebody.

You might be acquainted with some who own or did own one or more of the CD-ROM compilations that included it.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Perhaps critics are just upset that the general membership of the church does not have access to that glorious and seemingly infinite library that the young Joseph Smith had at his fingertips when he conceived of the Book of Mormon. To hear reports of the many inspirations for the book it must have been incredible. Rivaling Alexandria!

[cassieblanca]

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.

I didn't hear about MMM till I was married but I don't concern myself that it was due to an attempt to whitewash church history. If you look at it that way, then the history of our country has been whitewashed too. In any case, you have supported my thoughts that people who leave the church at the very least feel more justified in leaving because of the "unsavory" history you mentioned. There is nothing in church history that means the church isn't true. It's not about how truthful the church is - it's about what the church is all about. In Sunday School, we don't study too much about the "unsavory" history because it isn't pertinent to our salvation. This year we are studying the Book of Mormon because the teachings in that book *are* pertinent to our salvation. I'm sorry that you never felt like you got an answer to your prayers about the Book of Mormon. That is a better reason for leaving than finding out things about the history that you didn't know before.

[cassieblanca]

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.

I thought the "head in hat" method was a myth until after I finished college and was married. It's true that you usually see the picture of him sitting at a desk with the plates, but I have since learned that for most of the translation process, J.S. didn't use anything - not plates, urim&thumim, hat, anything. Yes, he tried out the hat method, but I don't see how that's relevant to anything. It seems a little strange. But to somone like me (and I know that I am in good company) who has received answers to prayers asking if the B of M is true - the answer doesn't change when I learn that a hat was involved at some point. I got a "yes" first, and I got a "yes" again later. J.S. could have put his head in a boot or a bucket if he wanted to - I got my answer and whatever was involved in the translation process doesn't change the answer I received. I don't see how finding out about the hat method can justify even an already-made decision to leave the church. If you leave it because you don't believe in it, that's enough reason. The hat doesn't help support either side in any way.

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.

The history is only enough to push them over the edge because they don't stop to think about it. Why is that part of history important? How does it change the possible truth of the church? The answer is that it doesn't, and it isn't. The church doesn't advertise the things that sound the strangest because they truly are not important. They don't make the difference in whether or not the church is true.

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

That's a better reason. But I'm sorry you don't feel like you got one. I have received some that I knew were my answers, but some are not clear-cut. Sometimes you have to be patient and sometimes you have to wait. But you know, just not believing in it, especially when you have given it a fair chance, is enough.

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.

It's possible. Because in fact, the "warts" are not important.

[cinepro]

Yes, I did a bit more looking and you are quite correct that there was a printing of the Comprehensive History of the Church in my lifetime. BYU Press apparently reprinted their 1965 edition between 1978 and 1982. I would have picked up a set but for the fact that I was a thousand miles away from BYU at the time and just starting kindergarten.

(Due to that accident of birth, I did not read a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until 1998, when I ordered Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre from Amazon.com.)

As I've said before, my first exposure to the Mountain Meadows Massacre was in Lee Nelson's "Storm Testament" series of novels when I was in 6th grade!

I was in fourth grade when I read the second book, which dramatized Nauvoo Polygamy.

Edited September 20, 2012 by cinepro

[cassieblanca]

Well, unfortunately, this "candid" account of MMM never seemed to trickle down to the numerous lessons I was taught in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, 4 years of Seminary, etc. Of course, I was raised in the evil bastion of Southern California, so it may have been taught differently in Utah.

I am in Southern CA now but I was raised in Utah and I never heard of MMM until I was out of college, married, and living here in southern CA. But I maintain that it isn't important in terms of the truth of the church. It isn't relevant to the point of church, Sunday School, seminary/instute, etc.

[cassieblanca]

Thank you for playing. Your consolation prize is continued cynicism.

(For an institution depending on blind faith the LDS Church sure does a lousy job of hiding its multiple published histories).

lol!

[Walden]

I am in Southern CA now but I was raised in Utah and I never heard of MMM until I was out of college, married, and living here in southern CA. But I maintain that it isn't important in terms of the truth of the church. It isn't relevant to the point of church, Sunday School, seminary/instute, etc.

While I agree that MMM is not important in terms of the truth claims of the LDS faith, I do think that the manner in which it has been dealt with by the church perpetuates certain moments of faith crisis. The same can be said about the multiple accounts of the first vision, Joseph's polygamy, etc. If one is wavering in their faith, for whatever reason, and begins digging into church history and finds inconsistencies in historical accounts or inconsitencies in how history was presented by the church vs. reality, they then may begin questioning what other things the church presented, or ignored, in order to promote the LDS faith. This is where the faith doubts, IMO, become a faith crisis.

[Damien the Leper]

I can understand why Saints sometimes get angry or feel betrayed when a piece of history is reported inaccurately or omitted from our lessons. Of course we cannot teach everything in every lesson and the church curricula focuses on the basics of the Gospel. We also know that the LDS Church is uniquely rich in history because we are a journal keeping and history keeping people. We have also grown up in the light of the 19-21st century giving us unprecedented volumes of history of our early years unlike other major religions.

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 get it.

I remember when in high school I was absolutely fascinated by American History. When I started American History in college I was troubled by the fact that the American History textbook we used in high school did not accurately portray historical events or persons.

James W. Loewen, a professor and authority on American History, wrote 2 books. The first was Lies Across America and it dealt with what our historic sites get wrong about history. The second was Lies My Teacher Told Me and it dealt with everything that American History textbooks get wrong. The book we used in my school was The American Challenge. It was one of the dozen books Dr. Loewen ripped apart when writing Lies My Teacher Told Me. It was disappointing how sanitized and nation-promoting our textbooks, their writers and distributors had become.

[Scott Lloyd]

While I agree that MMM is not important in terms of the truth claims of the LDS faith, I do think that the manner in which it has been dealt with by the church perpetuates certain moments of faith crisis.

Given what has been quoted and cited on this thread, (Church History in the Fulness of Times text, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, A Comprehensive History of the Church) I'm at a loss to figure out what it is you're complaining about in "the manner in which it has been dealt with by the Church."

There has been some folklore handed down through the generations, but I think it's hardly fair to blame the Church for that.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

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

I get it.

Encore! Encore!

That was very well executed. I enjoyed that.

[Walden]

Given what has been quoted and cited on this thread, (Church History in the Fulness of Times text, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, A Comprehensive History of the Church) I'm at a loss to figure out what it is you're complaining about in "the manner in which it has been dealt with by the Church."

There has been some folklore handed down through the generations, but I think it's hardly fair to blame the Church for that.

The manner that I am speaking of is the general manner in which things are taught in the LDS church. When I was in seminary 20 years ago, it was filled with faith-promoting stories of the first vision, Joseph's translation using the urim and thummin, the church's role in establishing Kirtland and Nauvoo, the pioneer's settlement of Utah, etc, etc. All of the stories that were taught by the seminary teachers, youth leaders, etc. were all warm and fuzzy and inspirational and generally neglected any mention of any "improprieties" perpetrated by the saints or their leaders; no mention of multiple versions of the first vision, alternate translation methods, Joseph's failures at Kirtland, MMM, etc., etc.

Many apologists here have already chimed in that they were in fact taught these things in their youth, but considering the rise of faith crisis in the LDS church with regard to church history, I would argue that they are the exception and not the rule. You can go on kidding yourself that the church is completely straight-forward with their historical accounts, but then I would wonder why such the dust-up, particulalry in the past decade, with members finding out verifiable facts that do not jibe with what they were taught in church. I mean, how many threads are there regarding the crisis of faith over historical LDS events....if the church was so efficient and straightforward in communicating their history, as you seem to argue, then why all the threads about faith crisis related to church history?

And of course you can name some church texts that deal with these matters, as you did with Church History in the Fulness of Times text, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, A Comprehensive History of the Church, etc. But do you actually expect the average LDS teen to even know of these publications, much less set aside the time to study them? Seriously? You are much more optimistic about the motives and drives of the current teen population than I am, but maybe that's because I'm a cynic at heart .

[Scott Lloyd]

And of course you can name some church texts that deal with these matters, as you did with Church History in the Fulness of Times text, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, A Comprehensive History of the Church, etc. But do you actually expect the average LDS teen to even know of these publications, much less set aside the time to study them? Seriously? You are much more optimistic about the motives and drives of the current teen population than I am, but maybe that's because I'm a cynic at heart .

I've said it before: It's curious how people who can't be bothered to crack open a Church history text or peruse an Ensign article undergo a metamorphosis into voracious consumers of all things anti-Mormon.

For the record, I'm in favor of a more candid treatment in institutional Church literature of matters about which antagonists generate controversy. I'm less than optimistic, though, that such candid treatment would be well-read, if so many of the rank-and-file in the Church don't bother to examine what's already available. I fear we would hear variations of the same old complaints that they were kept in the dark. There's something about the human psyche that resists the acceptance of personal responsibility.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

The manner that I am speaking of is the general manner in which things are taught in the LDS church. When I was in seminary 20 years ago, it was filled with faith-promoting stories...

That is what we want to do, ya know. We generally want to promote faith, rather than talk about something that may tear it down, especially in the earlier years of our youth when they're still trying to define their character in the world.

Many apologists here have already chimed in that they were in fact taught these things in their youth, but considering the rise of faith crisis in the LDS church with regard to church history, I would argue that they are the exception and not the rule.

Or maybe they're just from an older generation and the youth of today hear more anti talk geared to try to tear down their faith.

The internet can do harm just as much as do good, and some people don't even know that tearing down faith in God is not good.

You can go on kidding yourself that the church is completely straight-forward with their historical accounts, but then I would wonder why such the dust-up, particulalry in the past decade, with members finding out verifiable facts that do not jibe with what they were taught in church.

Or at least claims that don't jibe with what they were taught in Church while those who make the claim assert they are verifiable.

... as if what anyone can find on the internet is true.

I mean, how many threads are there regarding the crisis of faith over historical LDS events....if the church was so efficient and straightforward in communicating their history, as you seem to argue, then why all the threads about faith crisis related to church history?

Because with things like the internet and more "progressive" television programs people now have more access to anti talk and values that are geared to tear down gaining faith from God, and teenagers find things like that appealing for some reason.

For many the teenage years are years of rebellion, anyway, ya know. The last thing they need but what they get more of is more talk that discourages them from learning from God.

And of course you can name some church texts that deal with these matters, as you did with Church History in the Fulness of Times text, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, A Comprehensive History of the Church, etc. But do you actually expect the average LDS teen to even know of these publications, much less set aside the time to study them? Seriously?

As times get harder for teenagers parents have to work harder to try to teach their children the good things they need to get closer to God, as if things weren't hard enough for the parents.

This world in general is getting worse and worse, and it actually takes a miracle for people to draw closer to God.

You are much more optimistic about the motives and drives of the current teen population than I am, but maybe that's because I'm a cynic at heart .

It's not all your fault. Society in general is geared toward helping people to become more cynical.

It takes faith from God to overcome all of it and the justified will continue to live by faith.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Ahab

[cassieblanca]

While I agree that MMM is not important in terms of the truth claims of the LDS faith, I do think that the manner in which it has been dealt with by the church perpetuates certain moments of faith crisis. The same can be said about the multiple accounts of the first vision, Joseph's polygamy, etc. If one is wavering in their faith, for whatever reason, and begins digging into church history and finds inconsistencies in historical accounts or inconsitencies in how history was presented by the church vs. reality, they then may begin questioning what other things the church presented, or ignored, in order to promote the LDS faith. This is where the faith doubts, IMO, become a faith crisis.

Our faith has to be tried in order to get stronger. As we read in Ether, we can only receive a witness after the trial of our faith. Anyone whose faith is wavering ought to take their doubts to the Lord. Looking up history is valuable for other reasons, but not for determining the truth of the church. None of that "shocking" history is relevant to the question of whether it's true or not. If a person leaves the church because of the shocking history, then their faith was not strong enough to withstand the trial and maybe they are better off out for now, until they can somehow learn to strengthen their faith another way.

[cassieblanca]

I've said it before: It's curious how people who can't be bothered to crack open a Church history text or peruse an Ensign article undergo a metamorphosis into voracious consumers of all things anti-Mormon.

Exactly!!

[MormonMason]

I don't know, you'll have to ask the RLDS that question. I'm not an apologist for the RLDS Church.

In terms of the DNA research, I am given to understand that all of the offspring of Joseph's alleged plural wives, including all of those who's mothers "swore" they were Joseph's, have been investigated and all have turned out to have nothing to do with the prophet. The suggestion he was a polygamist and therefore sexually active with these women, is dealt a massive blow by this evidence. It really is very unlikely he wouldn't have fathered children. Especially as he didn't seem to have any trouble fathering children on a regular basis with Emma.

The "eye-witness accounts" you mention are nothing of the sort. Were the witnesses present in the bedroom? No they weren't. To be present at a sealing doesn't qualify in my estimation because a sealing is not a marriage. I was sealed to my parents after we joined the church but I'm not married to them. Brigham Young was sealed to Joseph but no one is claiming this was a marriage either.

Joseph said: "I had not been married scarely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives............. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of adultery, and of having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

I have read and examined the denial (above) many times. I do not see what you apparently see, so please feel free to illuminate.

As Isreal A Smith (the prophets grandson) said in 1956 "Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about.........."

I do not have a lot of time right now (as anyone can see I have not posted for a bit since my last) but thought I would write a little something before this thread ends up closed and I may not get back in time.

As to DNA testing, the work is not complete. You are mistaken that it was complete. It still is ongoing. As of the latest information I was able to obtain, Josephine Lyon's results are inconclusive. They neither prove one way nor the other. In addition, there are a large number of Smith genetic markers in the autosomal DNA of her descendents.

That might point to Joseph Smith as being Josephine's father. Unfortunately, the DNA also has a lot of noise. It turned out that Sessions ancestors intermarried with Smith ancestors several generations prior to the birth of Joseph Smith. This is where the confusion is unless they can further isolate the results from additional and more widespread testing. But, there are a lot of Smith markers in the DNA of Josephine Lyons' descendents. More testing may or may not be able to clear a path through the noise. Nevertheless, the results are inconclusive not that Josephine is proven not to be a daughter of Joseph Smith. Further and future work might include DNA sampled from corpses closer to both Sessions and Smith. This will require a lot of work, permits and permissions. The results might remain inconclusive for the foreseeable future.

As to time frame in the statement that Joseph Smith made that you cited above, the reference was to the time of Joseph Smith's marriage to Emma Hale and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon that occurred within a few years of each other. In addition to that, Joseph Smith was very careful in his wording and in his practices of the time. Plural marriage was illegal in Illinois during the Nauvoo Period. No public records that could easily be obtained were made or left. In fact, there is evidence of sham marriages that were set up to make it appear legal on the books. One such case is to be seen in a contemporary journal account, wherein is mentioned a "pretended marriage" that was set up after Joseph Smith was married to another woman. After the marriage was performed and later (from one source I do not recall at the moment) consummated, Joseph Smith then performed a marriage between the woman and a widower. She then continued to live in the man's house in separate quarters with Joseph Smith paying periodic visits to her.

In any case, if it came down to proving certain people perjurers, all he needed to do was to produce the public records created using sham marriages and prove that he was not legally married to any of those plural wives. They could only demonstrate marriages by consulting journal accounts. This they could not do among those who were loyal to Joseph Smith. I don't have access to my notes at the moment so I cannot at present give precise details but that is the basic gist of what I know about the situation and about how careful Joseph Smith was to keep the secret.

And, as to eyewitnesses, I do not have the document in front of me at the moment and likely won't for several more weeks. But, I do remember people who were around Joseph Smith who testified that they personally were aware of plural marriages between him and other women. That makes them witnesses. It was not until the Temple Lot Case that some of these same people later would perjure themselves on the witness stand.

Got to go. Don't know when I'll be able to come back. It might be tomorrow; it might be any length of time beyond that. It depends upon what gets done and what still needs doing where I am.

[DBMormon]

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.

Other then Polyandry, I knew all of the issues before or shortly after baptism. Why? because I took time to read everything I could. I wanted to know everything.

I will say I too expected the church to tell me, but have realized there is not enough time to teach both the non spiritual details and the gospel both. People have to look and study on their own. For those who don't the church is best focusing on the basics of the gospel. That said I think the church does an ok job at sharing the details as much as they do. Type in "Seer Stone" on the search for LDS.ORG and see what comes up.... it's there and while not in every month's ensign, it is there for every generation to see it if they read the material.

[DBMormon]

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.

I get your feelings... I really really do, ask anyone here about me. But at what point would the amount of information on MMM be suffcient for you? When would it have been enough. Why didn't you know and why did I know as a 17 year old convert?

My teachers didn't talk about it at length either. It wasn't the focus of a Sunday School lesson, nor should it have been. But I knew. Why? because I wanted to read and know as much as I could about the church. When I read it, did it destroy my faith, nope.

My only issue all along has been like you that the church didn't tell me and they should have.... but the longer I am in this discussion the more I realize it is me with the false expectation and the not church with the wrong application.

here reprinted is my experience that really hit this home -

God has a sense of humor and I can prove it. I get a call today from a member in tears.... her daughter (a member) is attending another church and one way or another has delved into a ton of anti material and wants to confront me with it. I go to the the Mothers house where her in tears and the daughter anger in her face. The husband and daughter's husband also sit in on the discussion. They start off asking standard anti material (treasure digging, seer stone, polyandry, polygamy, masonry, temple symbols, ect...) I answer each question calmly and with each she grows more and more frustrated.... then it happens...

She says "Why was I never told this" I told her I knew most of it before baptism and that other then a couple of issues I could find it on LDS.ORG or other church sources. She asked how many members knew what I did? I told her that of those who study things out I would guess most and shared that many members choose not to spend time researching peripheral information and issues and are then naive to those appendages of the church and it's history. She asked why she didn't know and how the church should of told her. She responded "The church should have told me".

I replied That "I knew that stuff and she didn't what was the difference"? If she failed to study and research was it her fault or the church's? she was speechless. Then she told me that as a Leader I was responsible someway somehow to make sure every member knew these issues.

I told her when I should cover that? She didn't know but said "as a Leader you would recieve inspiration on how to share all this stuff"

I told her my inspiration told me there was no way to cover this stuff without losing focus on "christ and the Doctrine of Christ", "That if I were to undertake that assignment and to be sure to cover all of it, I would need hours, days, weeks, to touch on most of it and in doing so would neglect what the members really need in terms of helping them come unto Christ by teaching the basics of the gospel"

She insisted I should still cover it, and I persisted in asking her when a good time was to cover material that is difficult to understand in it's context and doesn't teach the gospel?

She still persisted though her husband agreed she was asking an unfair request.

She was in tears and I could see that she was in the midst of a faith crisis and I understood her pain, and yet I saw no way to meet her need (full disclosure). While offering many sound answers to her questions, she could not budge from the hurt she felt.

Her husband and her father both while not believers, saw the answers as useful but they were not emotionally invested in the questions or answers. It really helped me see how emotion plays into how we shape our expectations. The Lord keeps teaching me, and while I still hope we can be more sensitive, The Lord gave me a opportune chance to see this problem from the other side.

[DBMormon]

Equivocation noted. And when the LDS Church tells its own story its motives are to ___PLANTING ___ faith. While critics tell a story about the LDS Church with the intent of _DIMINSHING_ faith.

Fill in the blanks.

hey Kevin, Hey Kevin, hey.... hey... Kevin Did I get I get it... huh?

I love fill in the blank!!!!!

Edited September 21, 2012 by DBMormon