The Church Hides Its History....

[tagriffy]

Here's a question I've never seen addressed. Was the "face in a hat" method of translation "no problem" for people even back in the 1800's? Meaning, most of the eyewitness accounts seem to come from interviews years later, and probably weren't widely circulated. Most Church members probably didn't know about the actual manner of translation (we probably know more than they did, right?) And most of the post-1830 statements from Joseph or Oliver refer to the U&T as a euphemism for the seer stone, let alone acknowledging the lack of plates being in the room during the translation process or Joseph sitting with his head in a hat.

So the desire to keep this aspect of Church history less-well-known might not be a case of presentism or contemporary bias. I suspect even back then, many people would have been less than inspired by the mechanics of the process.

I don't know. I'm sure arguments could be made either way. The late dating of the witness accounts could simply mean they were taken simply to have them before the first generation died out entirely. I never got the feeling the witnesses were relating something they considered embarrassing. David Whitmer used the story as proof the Book of Mormon came through the power of God. For all we know the witnesses were cheerfully discussing the seer stone and it's role in translating the Book of Mormon the whole time. One could point to JS-H 56 or Joseph's rather cheeky response he only made fourteen dollars a week (am I remembering this correctly?) for money-digging as evidence of embarrassment. His ready adoption of the Urim and Thummim terminology at least suggests he wanted to differentiate what he was doing before with what he was doing later.

[tagriffy]

Except wasn't it known even back then that Joseph was in a dueling of peepstone contest with a Methodist minister's wife. I suspect that our "weirdness" of feeling regarding seerstones is more of a modern aversion then it was back then.

Quinn's work does point out how common the "magic world view" was during Smith's time.

[Stone holm]

Quinn's work does point out how common the "magic world view" was during Smith's time.

We could use a little more magic in our world view right now.

[Calm]

Except wasn't it known even back then that Joseph was in a dueling of peepstone contest with a Methodist minister's wife.

Either new to me or I haven't heard it put that way before. CFR please.

[Calm]

One could point to JS-H 56 or Joseph's rather cheeky response he only made fourteen dollars a week (am I remembering this correctly?) for money-digging as evidence of embarrassment.

Fourteen dollars a week would have been good wages back then, I believe. IIRC, it was $14 total. Doublechecking now.

add-on: both wrong, it was fourteen dollars a month:

Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

FAIR has a reference. Edited June 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

Fourteen dollars a week would have been good wages back then, I believe. IIRC, it was $14 total. Doublechecking now.

add-on: both wrong, it was fourteen dollars a month:

Thanks for the correction.

[Hamilton Porter]

I think we should empathize with those who are troubled by learning stuff about church history, regardless of whether they are justified (and I think they're not).

[Stone holm]

Either new to me or I haven't heard it put that way before. CFR please.

Not sure if I read it or it was in a church video. As I recall the story, one of the reasons that Joseph had to keep moving the plates was that a neighbouring Methodist ministers wife had a crystal ball and as fast as he would move the plates she would discern the hiding place and he would be prompted to move them and would usually get that done just before her minions would arrive. Sorry, when I read or watch videos, I don't take notes, but I don't think I just dreamed that up. Has anybody else heard that story?

[Hamilton Porter]

Why do people get upset at any organization (religious, non-profit, government, business) for propagandist history. That's so weird. Every organization does that.

[canard78]

Why do people get upset at any organization (religious, non-profit, government, business) for propagandist history. That's so weird. Every organization does that.

Cool, we're no worse than other man-made organisations. It's a good benchmark

[rockpond]

Why do people get upset at any organization (religious, non-profit, government, business) for propagandist history. That's so weird. Every organization does that.

I think many people have an expectation of truth and even full disclosure from the one true and living church. We need to rise above the level of other man-made organizations.

We present a simplified, correlated history because we want to build faith. I understand that. But eventually discovering the more complex details, can be tough for many.

[Stone holm]

I think many people have an expectation of truth and even full disclosure from the one true and living church. We need to rise above the level of other man-made organizations.

We present a simplified, correlated history because we want to build faith. I understand that. But eventually discovering the more complex details, can be tough for many.

True so long as we aren't just facilitating the enemies of the Church, there is a fine line there.

[tagriffy]

True so long as we aren't just facilitating the enemies of the Church, there is a fine line there.

A basic inoculation with some of the more complex details would take away much the ammunition used by enemies of the Church.

[rockpond]

True so long as we aren't just facilitating the enemies of the Church, there is a fine line there.

What do you mean? How would we facilitate the enemies of the church (in this context)?

[Hamilton Porter]

I think many people have an expectation of truth and even full disclosure from the one true and living church. We need to rise above the level of other man-made organizations.

We present a simplified, correlated history because we want to build faith. I understand that. But eventually discovering the more complex details, can be tough for many.

Propaganda is as old as scripture. The Jerusalem church didn't even let its people know the Rival galilee church, which didn't allow Gentiles, existed. That's not lying that's just building the kingdom.

Asking an organization to do what we ask of individual is the fallacy of composition. Bizarre.

[Calm]

We need to rise above the level of other man-made organizations.

Since men and women are pretty much the sole tools through which the organization operates, I am not seeing how we can rise above the level of other man-made organizations. There will be times that members are the best and will rise it to the best of organizations...but why can't that happen for others who are trying their best? There will be times that members are not at the best and will drag the organization down, as we are likely very familiar with happening in every organization we've ever belonged to, even our families.

[rockpond]

Propaganda is as old as scripture. The Jerusalem church didn't even let its people know the Rival galilee church, which didn't allow Gentiles, existed. That's not lying that's just building the kingdom.

Asking an organization to do what we ask of individual is the fallacy of composition. Bizarre.

You can keep saying its bizarre but talk to a few people who have gone through faith crises... It seems to me that regardless of the comparisons you are drawing, there are quite a few people who have higher expectations of the one true and living church of Christ.

[rockpond]

Since men and women are pretty much the sole tools through which the organization operates, I am not seeing how we can rise above the level of other man-made organizations. There will be times that members are the best and will rise it to the best of organizations...but why can't that happen for others who are trying their best? There will be times that members are not at the best and will drag the organization down, as we are likely very familiar with happening in every organization we've ever belonged to, even our families.

I agree, Calmoriah. I think what you just wrote is a key concept to understand when coming up against the kind of faith crisis that is rooted in some of these historical issues: even though the church is led by Christ, it is run by men and women striving to follow Him but constantly falling short.

[ERayR]

I think many people have an expectation of truth and even full disclosure from the one true and living church. We need to rise above the level of other man-made organizations.

We present a simplified, correlated history because we want to build faith. I understand that. But eventually discovering the more complex details, can be tough for many.

We each have our own problems and weaknesses to face and overcome.

[ERayR]

You can keep saying its bizarre but talk to a few people who have gone through faith crises... It seems to me that regardless of the comparisons you are drawing, there are quite a few people who have higher expectations of the one true and living church of Christ.

IMNSHO they are being unrealistic. They are expecting perfection where non exists.

[Stone holm]

What do you mean? How would we facilitate the enemies of the church (in this context)?

Well I agree that people put GAs up on ridiculously high pedestals and sometimes get carried away with the idea that the Church is always right -- and then they can have horrible faith crises when they start discovering that GAs are in fact human and that the Church leadership sometimes sends it sailing down blind alleys, but I think we can overdo the bring up every blemish thing. So I draw the line at attacking the personal lives of the Brethren.

[ERayR]

Well I agree that people put GAs up on ridiculously high pedestals and sometimes get carried away with the idea that the Church is always right -- and then they can have horrible faith crises when they start discovering that GAs are in fact human and that the Church leadership sometimes sends it sailing down blind alleys, but I think we can overdo the bring up every blemish thing. So I draw the line at attacking the personal lives of the Brethren.

I always cringe when I hear"The Church is perfect but the people are not". As long as the Church is made up of people it is not perfect.

[rockpond]

IMNSHO they are being unrealistic. They are expecting perfection where non exists.

Conceptually, I agree.

But in the context of historical issues, I'm not sure that they are necessarily expecting perfection. Just more disclosure. But, honestly, I'm grateful to not be in the position of the Brethren trying to decide how to deal with these historical issues that seem to be increasing in intensity now that the internet has opened up the flow of information (both true and false). How do you build faith of the "younger" members while simultaneously strengthening the "older" members against the more complex historical issues.

[rockpond]

Well I agree that people put GAs up on ridiculously high pedestals and sometimes get carried away with the idea that the Church is always right -- and then they can have horrible faith crises when they start discovering that GAs are in fact human and that the Church leadership sometimes sends it sailing down blind alleys, but I think we can overdo the bring up every blemish thing. So I draw the line at attacking the personal lives of the Brethren.

Agreed.

[rockpond]

I always cringe when I hear"The Church is perfect but the people are not". As long as the Church is made up of people it is not perfect.

Amen!