What Is Hidden History?

[Thinking]

I learned about __________ for the first time about 10 years ago. An apologist once criticized me for not knowing about it earlier than that because it was not hidden. While it’s true that the information regarding __________ is not locked away, neither is it left out in the open. It can be found if you know where to look. However, having never even heard about __________, why would I even look for it?

This thread is not about __________, but about what constitutes hidden history. A better question might be, “Are there different levels of hidden history?” The apologist might say, “Here’s the information. It’s not, nor was it ever hidden.” A critic might say, “I was never taught this. Therefore, it was hidden from me.”

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

Edited June 23, 2013 by Thinking

[Tacenda]

I learned about __________ for the first time about 10 years ago. An apologist once criticized me for not knowing about it earlier than that because it was not hidden. While it’s true that the information regarding __________ is not locked away, neither is it left out in the open. It can be found if you know where to look. However, having never even heard about __________, why would I even look for it?

This thread is not about __________, but about what constitutes hidden history. A better question might be, “Are there different levels of hidden history?” The apologist might say, “Here’s the information. It’s not, nor was it ever hidden.” A critic might say, “I was never taught this. Therefore, it was hidden from me.”

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

Fill in the blanks, or is it sort of hidden?

[Glenn101]

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

Not discussed is not equal to hidden. One may examine closely the history of the church, find out many facts that may not be liked, but that will not bring anyone closer to the truth of the claims of the prophet Joseph Smith that he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Glenn

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I'm glad it isn't talked about. After all, it's really all details, when compared to the essentials of the gospel. All that extra stuff just really doesn't matter a bit, when compared to everything else. I guess I don't care much about 'hidden history', I care more about important principles that I can use in day to day life. Then again, I know not everyone thinks this way.

[bcuzbcuz]

I learned about __________ for the first time about 10 years ago. An apologist once criticized me for not knowing about it earlier than that because it was not hidden. While it’s true that the information regarding __________ is not locked away, neither is it left out in the open. It can be found if you know where to look. However, having never even heard about __________, why would I even look for it?

This thread is not about __________, but about what constitutes hidden history. A better question might be, “Are there different levels of hidden history?” The apologist might say, “Here’s the information. It’s not, nor was it ever hidden.” A critic might say, “I was never taught this. Therefore, it was hidden from me.”

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

What if I were to fill in the blanks with something entirely different and consider whether it constitutes hidden information?

Fill in the blanks with "my partner's infidelity" and substitute 'an apologist' with "my partner". Stop at the end of the quotation marks.

Is it 'hidden information'? Or are you merely naive for not having seen it earlier.

[Palerider]

Being told not to deviate from the manual regarding subject matter and then having the manual redact the word "wives" to "wife" in a statement from Brigham young is, in principle, a way of hiding the truth.

The church may think it gains by this sort of behavior but to the individual who already knows about Brigham's plural wives and also knows of the "creative editing", on some subconcious level the church is devalued.

To the individual who knows little about Brigham's polygamy but will some day find out, he will ask himself if he can trust the church who has failed to fully inform him at a time when he didn't know what questions to ask.

[Cobalt-70]

To be quite honest, I'm glad it isn't talked about. After all, it's really all details, when compared to the essentials of the gospel. All that extra stuff just really doesn't matter a bit, when compared to everything else. I guess I don't care much about 'hidden history', I care more about important principles that I can use in day to day life. Then again, I know not everyone thinks this way.

Often, you cannot disentangle the "hidden history" from the "essentials of the gospel." For example: (a) the history of the First Vision and the various additions and elaborations it gathered during Smith's lifetime; (b) the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon and Smith's earlier use of exactly the same process in magic treasure seeking; © the history of basic Mormon theology, which only assumed its modern form in about 1915 after the church concluded that the prophet Brigham Young's fundamental view of god was false doctrine; (d) the history of the Book of Abraham scrolls and their modern Egyptological translations; or (e) the history of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the various revisions, canonizations, uncanonizations, and doctrinal reversals in this essential book of our canon. None of these things are "extra stuff." These go to the heart of Mormon theology and doctrine.

For several decades now, up until very recently, the church has essentially been actively or tacitly discouraging access to any source of information about LDS history that is not published by a "safe" church source. Mormons are supposed to read only from the "best books," which is generally taken to mean books that you can purchase at Deseret Book. So to argue that "nothing is hidden" within a culture in which all the "hidden stuff" can only be found in frowned-upon sources, is a little disingenuous. Nobody should be surprised when Mormons who were originally taught only the official history in the official or church-approved "safe" sources feel betrayed and lied to when they find out the rest of the story on the internet or in scholarly publications.

[crixus]

To be quite honest, I'm glad it isn't talked about.

Now there's a shocker.

After all, it's really all details, when compared to the essentials of the gospel.

How would you know if you don't know what it is you weren't taught? And who are you to determine this for everyone else? Obviously most people find these things uncomfortable and it makes a huge difference to them, especially when they find out that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet and that all his truth claims were undermined by the things you prefer never to be taught.

All that extra stuff just really doesn't matter a bit

Obviously it does or else the Church wouldn't go through so much trouble to avoid telling it and apologists wouldn't go through so much trouble to dance around the evidence in order to paint a misleading, yet faith-promoting picture.

when compared to everything else

Everything else what? The Church doesn't teach anything unique or special that isn't taught in other religions. All the other stuff is just "details" that apologists won't tie into "official doctrine" anyway. If the Church is so wonderful, then why do most members leave it?

Here is a great experiment. How many people here think Joseph Smith was a completely innocent victim who did nothing to create discontent with others? By reading Church approved material, the guy was a saint. Lamb to the slaughter and all that jazz, right? But how many people here know about a rarely talked about incident when Joseph Smith declared a small grocery store a public nuisance because it sold alcohol, and then had it destroyed when the owner tried to defend his property. Joseph Smith showed up with some men, got into a fight, knocked him out and said something like "this is how we do it here." The owner of that grocery store turned out to be one of the leaders of the Mob that eventually killed Joseph Smith.

How come we never hear stories like this from the Church? Gee, I wonder.

Edited June 23, 2013 by crixus

[why me]

For several decades now, up until very recently, the church has essentially been actively or tacitly discouraging access to any source of information about LDS history that is not published by a "safe" church source. Mormons are supposed to read only from the "best books," which is generally taken to mean books that you can purchase at Deseret Book. So to argue that "nothing is hidden" within a culture in which all the "hidden stuff" can only be found in frowned-upon sources, is a little disingenuous. Nobody should be surprised when Mormons who were originally taught only the official history in the official or church-approved "safe" sources feel betrayed and lied to when they find out the rest of the story on the internet or in scholarly publications.

I have the Discourses of Joseph Smith published in 1977 by Desseret. There are many quotations that are in that book that the critics claim are hidden. For example, his boasting. How many times our members told that Joseph was not humble enough to be a prophet because of his boast. and how that is hidden and yet, it is in a church book. Likewise for other quotations that the critics have claimed are kept from the membership. In that book of selections, joseph said some strange things. Did it cause anyone to lose faith? I don't think so.

However, today we are told that all this is hidden and members do not know about such quotations. So what contitues hidden is a good question. For example in the discourses book joseph is claiming that the earth is formed out of other planets. It is there for all to read. It does sound crazy, especially if cherry picked. But with the complete book, it is more understandable. He was dealing with a 19th century mind and we never when that book was published thought of it as doctrine.

Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Desseret Book 1977

[why me]

Often, you cannot disentangle the "hidden history" from the "essentials of the gospel." For example: (a) the history of the First Vision and the various additions and elaborations it gathered during Smith's lifetime; (b) the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon and Smith's earlier use of exactly the same process in magic treasure seeking; © the history of basic Mormon theology, which only assumed its modern form in about 1915 after the church concluded that the prophet Brigham Young's fundamental view of god was false doctrine; (d) the history of the Book of Abraham scrolls and their modern Egyptological translations; or (e) the history of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the various revisions, canonizations, uncanonizations, and doctrinal reversals in this essential book of our canon. None of these things are "extra stuff." These go to the heart of Mormon theology and doctrine.

I think that if one were to search for old copies of books published by Desseret one would come across much information that the critics claim are hidden from the membership. For example, the critics can make a big ado about Zelph and how members have no idea of Zelph and the claim made by Joseph Smith. And yet, it is in the Discourses of Joseph Smith published by Desseret. So where is it hidden? What should the church do? I can find other things to from church sponsored books. I suppose the critics will never happy with what is hidden. They will always find something 'hidden' somewhere. And yet, is most of it actually hidden?

Edited June 23, 2013 by why me

[why me]

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

This is so bogus. If one wishes to examine the history of the lds church, one can read Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman or Brigham Young, American Moses by Leonard Arrington. Both books were sold by Desseret back in the day. The problem today is that people want easy information and allow the internet to determine their faith or lack of faith. If one would just put on their critical thinking glasses and do some research one would find that much has been published in the past. Including in 1977, and article in the ensign which stated that one of joseph's wives who lived with the prophet said wonderful things about him.

But yes, I suppose that every three years all members should be required to take a lds history exam in their local wards or branches and pass before moving out of the class. And the book that would be required reading would be written by exmormons. It is important to get to know the 'correct' interpretation.

Edited June 23, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

Not discussed is not equal to hidden. One may examine closely the history of the church, find out many facts that may not be liked, but that will not bring anyone closer to the truth of the claims of the prophet Joseph Smith that he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Glenn

I think this is sometimes defended through a play with semantics.

If I place something in a location that makes it findable to the dedicated seeker but not in plain site have I hidden it?

A favourite FHE game is hunt the thimble. The thimble is placed somewhere that the seeker can't immediately see it. They usually have to lift another item or stand in a particular position. Otherwise it is not naturally seen. Would we call the thimble hidden?

I went through 4 years of seminary, 2 year mission, have always been active so have been through the Sunday cycle times, have served on PEC most of my adult life and attended many conferences, training meetings, fireside etc etc.

Here are a few things that were new news to me in the last 24 months (and only by reading outside of official church material):

- Joseph a polygamist of 33+

- Joseph married to other men's wives and teenagers

- Joseph translating with his head in a stone-filled hat

- Mountain Meadows

- No revelation to introduce black priesthood ban

- 80 years of a relaxed approach to WoW

- Multiple vision accounts

- Priesthood restoration unheard of until 1834

- Martin Harris not present when Angel showed the plates to Whitmer and Cowdery

- Translation confirmed by someone who had no credentials to actually confirm it.

Some of these are mentioned by the church if you look hard enough (sometimes 3-4 articles in the entire history of publications). Others are not covered at all, ever (e.g. polyandry).

I'm glad to see history.lds.org is starting to address this. I hear rumours that they've employed Givens to take it all a step further.

On the other hand...

Do we expect the Catholics to teach the Inquisition in Sunday School?

Or the Anglican sermons to have a detailed investigation into the ills of Henry VIII & Elizabeth I.

I don't. Perhaps I should not expect the same of my church. However, even if they aren't expected to do history lessons during church, the discovery of these issues doesn't stop me feeling concerned and a little anxious about it.

[why me]

If the Church is so wonderful, then why do most members leave it?

I would be the first to admit that the critics have latched on to something unique: all members should be taught lds history from the critic perspective and interpretation. I know of no other church under such pressure. I think that those who leave because of the 'hidden' reason, have done so because they actually believe that it is hidden without realizing that much was read and written in the past by church publications. However, I do believe that the church has changed direction in the 3 decades and do not stress the discourses of joseph smith etc. But it has nothing to do with it being hidden. It has more to do with what is needed today to live a more gospel centered life. Now if you can find fault with such church teachings then please share it with us.

Also, in the discourses of joseph smith on page 109, it is stated that females can lay their hands on the sick and pray over the sick. This is not hidden from the membership since they can buy the book and read it themselves. So, much claimed hidden is pretty much published by the church. But what should the church do if the members do not buy such books as the discourses of Joseph smith?

[why me]

On the other hand...

Do we expect the Catholics to teach the Inquisition in Sunday School?

Or the Anglican sermons to have a detailed investigation into the ills of Henry VIII & Elizabeth I.

I don't. Perhaps I should not expect the same of my church. However, even if they aren't expected to do history lessons during church, the discovery of these issues doesn't stop me feeling concerned and a little anxious about it.

This has been my claim too quite often on this board. However, in the discourses of joseph smith it is stated very briefly that the joseph made a few remarks about the WoW and stated that it should be observed. See page 217, However, what does should mean? It doesn't say must. And so, in the past, when people actually read books published by the church they would question and come up with their own understanding that the practice has changed from a should to a must.

[why me]

I think this is sometimes defended through a play with semantics.

If I place something in a location that makes it findable to the dedicated seeker but not in plain site have I hidden it?

A favourite FHE game is hunt the thimble. The thimble is placed somewhere that the seeker can't immediately see it. They usually have to lift another item or stand in a particular position. Otherwise it is not naturally seen. Would we call the thimble hidden?

I went through 4 years of seminary, 2 year mission, have always been active so have been through the Sunday cycle times, have served on PEC most of my adult life and attended many conferences, training meetings, fireside etc etc.

Here are a few things that were new news to me in the last 24 months (and only by reading outside of official church material):

- Joseph a polygamist of 33+ (this was known in the past)

- Joseph married to other men's wives and teenagers (known in the past since we read Helen's account)

- Joseph translating with his head in a stone-filled hat (known in the past)

- Mountain Meadows

- No revelation to introduce black priesthood ban (known in the past since no one could find one)

- 80 years of a relaxed approach to WoW (known in the past)

- Multiple vision accounts (known in the past)

- Priesthood restoration unheard of until 1834

- Martin Harris not present when Angel showed the plates to Whitmer and Cowdery

- Translation confirmed by someone who had no credentials to actually confirm it.

Some of these are mentioned by the church if you look hard enough (sometimes 3-4 articles in the entire history of publications). Others are not covered at all, ever (e.g. polyandry).

I'm glad to see history.lds.org is starting to address this. I hear rumours that they've employed Givens to take it all a step further.

The others may have been known but I can't remember reading anything about it from church sources. And so, here is the point: a better question is: why did the church stop publishing material about these topics. However, to be honest I have no idea just what kind of books are now in desseret.

[why me]

I think that it should now be obvious that the lds church needs to become what it was during the 1970's when information was more available. If the church would have kept up with such articles in the ensign as it had in the past, the hidden aspect that the critics constantly tout would have no teeth. I do believe that certain leaders in salt lake realize this. However, not everyone is on board. But hopefully, more will be written about the topics that were covered before the change in direction that happened in the late 80's or early 90's.

[canard78]

I would be the first to admit that the critics have latched on to something unique: all members should be taught lds history from the critic perspective and interpretation. I know of no other church under such pressure.

I also know of few other churches who claim to be a restoration of all things, initiated through a visit from God himself on the principle that all other churches are wrong; leading to a church established through angelic visitations and bestowals from the patriarchs of the past; culminating in a church with all keys and saving ordinances and claiming to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth. With claims like that you might expect a little scrutiny.

The comparison I can think of is the Catholic Church, but they went through 100s of years of scrutiny starting with Martin Luther and continuing today. There are more colum inches dedicated to the ills of the Catholics than the Mormons.

Other Protestant churches generally don't generate as much scrutiny because their 'truth claims' generally don't warrant it. I've a friend who's a former Congregationalist minister. Given each congregation sets their own tone and priorities and are fully aware that their human diversity is what makes them both a positive but imperfect organsitation it's unsurprising that no-one bothers them.

I think that those who leave because of the 'hidden' reason, have done so because they actually believe that it is hidden without realizing that much was read and written in the past by church publications. However, I do believe that the church has changed direction in the 3 decades and do not stress the discourses of joseph smith etc. But it has nothing to do with it being hidden. It has more to do with what is needed today to live a more gospel centered life. Now if you can find fault with such church teachings then please share it with us.

Also, in the discourses of joseph smith on page 109, it is stated that females can lay their hands on the sick and pray over the sick. This is not hidden from the membership since they can buy the book and read it themselves. So, much claimed hidden is pretty much published by the church. But what should the church do if the members do not buy such books as the discourses of Joseph smith?

There are different definitions of hidden. Put in a place where it cannot be found is one (and this is often what apologists mean when they say it's not hidden as they can refer to one or two LDS articles to show it had been covered at least once in our whole history). But hidden can also mean not putting something in plain site. If I buy my wife a diamond and put it in my 'man drawer' (we men all have one) or if I own a gun an put it on top of the wardrobe away from the kids (I don't have one) then is it hidden? My wife could find it if she was rummaging through the old keys, foreign currency and AA batteries, but if she didn't and I hadn't told her, then it's hidden. With the gun, everyone may even know where it is but the kids will start to forget because 'out of site out of mind.'

In both cases the diamond and gun are hidden.

[Glenn101]

Do we expect the Catholics to teach the Inquisition in Sunday School?

Or the Anglican sermons to have a detailed investigation into the ills of Henry VIII & Elizabeth I.

I don't. Perhaps I should not expect the same of my church. However, even if they aren't expected to do history lessons during church, the discovery of these issues doesn't stop me feeling concerned and a little anxious about it.

Where did you get your testimony of the truthfulness of Gospel and of Joseph Smith as a prophet, or did you ever really have one? The problems that have been enumerated by several, such as supposed problems with the Book of Abraham have all been given plausible answers.

Over the years, much has been written about those problems, and published. However, I don't know how curious people have been about reading. The internet has made a lot of information easily available. But anti-Mormon literature has been available for ages, long before the internet was a houehold name or a common fact of existence.

Of course, if anyone thinks that they have enough facts to render a true/not true judgement on the Church and Joseph Smith, then it is their privilege to do so. But reason is no better than the facts at ones disposal. There have been a lot of people convicted of crimes when most of the known facts seemed to point to their guilt. Then, along comes DNA testing, and there have been a significant number of those convictions overturned.

There is some history intermingled with the coming forth of the Gospel and its restoration. If the Church were to teach the entire history of those events, that is all it would do. But the mission of the church is not to teach its history, but to teach the saving principles of the gospel and how to ascertain the truth of those principles. But, even in those areas, it is not able to do so fully. There is just not ebough time in a Sunday to get it all in. It is the burden of each member to read, study, ponder, and pray about the gospel principles that are presented and to develop their understanding of those principles mostly on their own.

Just about every religion and denomination has soem "dirty laundry" which is not taught in "Sunday School." However, studying the history of that "dirty laundry" is not the way to ascertain the truthfulness of any religion. Can you discover whether Joseph Smith received his first vision by studying church history? Can you find out if Joseph was actually visited by the angel Moroni by reading church history?

The answer is no.

But that is the very first thin that should be ascertained. We have to get answers from the one person who has all of the facts, and knows all of the answers. This is an age old question asked by Nephi of his brothers "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" (I Nephi 15)

If a person has not taken those steps, he or she will only be spinning their wheels and will not get an answer from history.

Glenn

Do not ask posters to give personal information about their spirituality.

[Storm Rider]

Being told not to deviate from the manual regarding subject matter and then having the manual redact the word "wives" to "wife" in a statement from Brigham young is, in principle, a way of hiding the truth.

The church may think it gains by this sort of behavior but to the individual who already knows about Brigham's plural wives and also knows of the "creative editing", on some subconcious level the church is devalued.

To the individual who knows little about Brigham's polygamy but will some day find out, he will ask himself if he can trust the church who has failed to fully inform him at a time when he didn't know what questions to ask.

PI have heard that we should teach only what is in the manual, but I don't know a single teacher in the Church that only teaches what is in manual. Are there really people that don't know that BY was a polygamist? Do these people grow up under rocks and never, ever, ever, read one iota of Mormon criticism or anti-Mormon "crap" (I have a problem with the term literature when referring this this ilk of rotten tripe, but I digress). I find some people like to whine regardless of the topic; it is just their MO to whine. There is a tendency to blame everyone except the person that stares at them in the mirror. This is not excuse members or the church from when they lie; however, I am also one that believes that there is no need in Church meetings to feel compelled to talk about the "whole" story. I feel quite certain that Jesus, the early apostles or anyone else associated with teaching the gospel they did not go into to detail when trying to teach a gospel message. I can hear it now, "Abraham was a prophet of God, but he married his half-sister which makes him guilt of incest", or "Lot's family was a beloved family of God, but there was a problem with the daughters and their desire to not allow their family to die out so they slept with him after getting him drunk". Who teaches like this? Why should someone teach like this? There is no value when talking about a gospel topic to make sure to recount every iota of problematic issue the topic. Expecting it to occur is just plan naïve if not outright .....less than intelligent.

[canard78]

I have the Discourses of Joseph Smith published in 1977 by Desseret. There are many quotations that are in that book that the critics claim are hidden. For example, his boasting. How many times our members told that Joseph was not humble enough to be a prophet because of his boast. and how that is hidden and yet, it is in a church book. Likewise for other quotations that the critics have claimed are kept from the membership. In that book of selections, joseph said some strange things. Did it cause anyone to lose faith? I don't think so.

However, today we are told that all this is hidden and members do not know about such quotations. So what contitues hidden is a good question. For example in the discourses book joseph is claiming that the earth is formed out of other planets. It is there for all to read. It does sound crazy, especially if cherry picked. But with the complete book, it is more understandable. He was dealing with a 19th century mind and we never when that book was published thought of it as doctrine.

Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Desseret Book 1977

Isn't it a little ironic that the best example of the church publishing some of the 'hidden' issues is in a book published by Deseret Book nearly 4 decades ago (and not even printed by the church, but by their commercial operation)?

I know you often point out that none of this was hidden from you, that you were aware of all this at a younger age in the 70s. Point is, I was alive, but couldn't read in the 70s. I couldn't even get myself dressed in the 70s.

[Calm]

What if I were to fill in the blanks with something entirely different and consider whether it constitutes hidden information?

Fill in the blanks with "my partner's infidelity" and substitute 'an apologist' with "my partner". Stop at the end of the quotation marks.

Is it 'hidden information'? Or are you merely naive for not having seen it earlier.

Do you treat all human interaction in a one size/method fits all approach?

[Calm]

I think this is sometimes defended through a play with semantics.

If I place something in a location that makes it findable to the dedicated seeker but not in plain site have I hidden it?

I think the intent of why it is placed there is what matters most.

[canard78]

PI have heard that we should teach only what is in the manual, but I don't know a single teacher in the Church that only teaches what is in manual. Are there really people that don't know that BY was a polygamist? Do these people grow up under rocks and never, ever, ever, read one iota of Mormon criticism or anti-Mormon "crap" (I have a problem with the term literature when referring this this ilk of rotten tripe, but I digress). I find some people like to whine regardless of the topic; it is just their MO to whine. There is a tendency to blame everyone except the person that stares at them in the mirror. This is not excuse members or the church from when they lie; however, I am also one that believes that there is no need in Church meetings to feel compelled to talk about the "whole" story. I feel quite certain that Jesus, the early apostles or anyone else associated with teaching the gospel they did not go into to detail when trying to teach a gospel message. I can hear it now, "Abraham was a prophet of God, but he married his half-sister which makes him guilt of incest", or "Lot's family was a beloved family of God, but there was a problem with the daughters and their desire to not allow their family to die out so they slept with him after getting him drunk". Who teaches like this? Why should someone teach like this? There is no value when talking about a gospel topic to make sure to recount every iota of problematic issue the topic. Expecting it to occur is just plan naïve if not outright .....less than intelligent.

I guess I was raised under a rock then. Well.. not quite. I was vaguely aware that we'd had a brief stint of polygamy that BY and a few others practiced. It was usually taught as 'a form of social welfare.' Until a year or so ago I had "never, ever, ever, read one iota of Mormon criticism or anti-Mormon" content. Want to know why? I'd always been taught it was evil, deceptive lies that would drag my soul down to hell. Is that actually the recommended way of coming out from under ones rock then?

I'd like to think there was a welcome route 'from under the rock' from the church. As mentioned, history.lds.org and something Givens is apparently working on looks like the church is finally waking up to that. Maybe we're heading back to the openness of 'why me's' 70s.

[canard78]

I think the intent of why it is placed there is what matters most.

I agree to a certain extent. Why did the church place it 'there?'

The word 'hide' actually doesn't have intent built in. The basic definition means "to put out of sight." Others mean something with a little more intent "to keep secret <hide the truth>"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hide

[Tacenda]

I think that it should now be obvious that the lds church needs to become what it was during the 1970's when information was more available. If the church would have kept up with such articles in the ensign as it had in the past, the hidden aspect that the critics constantly tout would have no teeth. I do believe that certain leaders in salt lake realize this. However, not everyone is on board. But hopefully, more will be written about the topics that were covered before the change in direction that happened in the late 80's or early 90's.

In the past our church didn't seem to have the need to fit in with or become mainstream the way it does now. It hides it's history, and now centers on the Saviour as it's main focus. Our newest members think it's very Christian, because they are told that the BoM is the fulfillment of the Gospel. No missionary hands out the PoGP, or the D&C, where the rest of the story is told, in fact the most critical story is told, the BoM is the advertisement along with the many new ad campaigns put up everywhere. This is probably the safest approach but may not be the wisest in the end. Edited June 23, 2013 by Tacenda