What Is Hidden History?

[Storm Rider]

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.

I did not say study; I never studied anti-Mormon drivel, but I certainly heard a ton of it as a boy some 40 to 50 years ago. The way of coming out from under a rock is just to listen. As I stated, I don't know a single teacher that only reads or says what is in a manual. Are there really people that don't know that BY was a polygamist? Be serious, just one that doesn't know about polygamy? How can this happen when the first thing out of anyone's mouth is, "Oh, you are Mormon, how many wives do you have?" or something similar. I don't buy your line; that is not personal, but I just don't buy it. No one is that naïve and that sheltered and if they are, shame on them for being so. You don't have to read anti-Mormon literature, but you cannot hide from newspapers, talk shows, etc.

[canard78]

Where didi you get your testimony of the truthfulness of Gospel and of Joseph Smith as a prophet, or did you ever really have one?

Your question, especially the "really," seems a little presumptuous. But I'll answer you anyway. Yes, absolutely. I could have stood up 12 months and said with absolute certainty and unequivocal conviction:

- I know Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in the grove in 1820

- I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God and a translation of the record, lives and testimonies of ancient prophets and leaders. One day we really will meet Nephi, Alma and Moroni at the Judgement Bar and give an account of how we used and applied their testimonies.

- I know this is the only true and living church on the earth.

I could go on... Long and the short is that I used to be able to say "I know" with complete certainty, through meaningful spiritual experiences. I have been raised in the church, attended all the programs, applied the principles and kept the commandments. And yes, 12 months later I can no longer say those things with conviction. I hope they are still so, but I'm not certain.

The problems that have been enumerated by several, such as supposed problems with the Book of Abraham have all been given plausible answers.

There remain several unanswered issues. Just as an example, the thread that was recently locked didn't even come close to answering how a prophet could bring in a false practice (black priesthood ban) with no revelation to do so and for it then to be perpetuated by many generations of prophets and even taught as being the doctrine and will of God.

FWIW, BoA isn't a big issue for me. If Joseph was a prophet then he can use any muse he likes to generate the right frame of mind to dictate scripture. I don't read and apply the scriptures brought forth by Joseph because I rate him as a great technical translator. I rate him as being able to speak things that convey an incredible description of God and the meaning of life.

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

I have taken those steps Glenn. I have knelt and prayed about the BoM, 1st Vision and several other things and have had several deeply meaningful spiritual experiences while doing so. But my perspective on what the answers I received mean are now different to what they were at the time of receiving them.

I can accept that God works through Mormonism and delights in it being one of many 'vehicles' for assisting a small portion of his children on the road to godliness. I don't however consider it to be the "only true and living" church. One does not always lead to the other. God has clearly created 1000s of vehicles for travelling the path. I'm confident God communicates with all his children and gives answers to prayers however they are said and by whatever name they address Him.

As to how this relates to history, what a lot of 'apologists' on here seem to be saying is: "history doesn't matter, the church doesn't have to teach it." If history matters so little, why do such a good job of hiding it? And I use the definition of "to put out of sight" - which they have.

My confidence in the organisation has been undermined on two counts:

- its origins and foundation do not look like something created with the direct involvement of the God that I perceive. At least not as the full, final and best 'vehicle' back to him. This is independent of whether the modern day church shares it openly or not. Even if they had always kept it all in plain site, I probably still would not have high confidence in it.

- the fact that they have also done a relatively good job of at best 'leaving it to one side' or at worst 'actively ignored it' means that I question whether I should fully trust the leaders as a source of other information and truth. On the one hand we are taught that we should always trust the leaders and that they will never lead us astray. On the other hand I've realised that statement is incorrect the moment it is stated. Even in making that statement they lead people astray.

[Tacenda]

I did not say study; I never studied anti-Mormon drivel, but I certainly heard a ton of it as a boy some 40 to 50 years ago. The way of coming out from under a rock is just to listen. As I stated, I don't know a single teacher that only reads or says what is in a manual. Are there really people that don't know that BY was a polygamist? Be serious, just one that doesn't know about polygamy? How can this happen when the first thing out of anyone's mouth is, "Oh, you are Mormon, how many wives do you have?" or something similar. I don't buy your line; that is not personal, but I just don't buy it. No one is that naïve and that sheltered and if they are, shame on them for being so. You don't have to read anti-Mormon literature, but you cannot hide from newspapers, talk shows, etc.

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

They hide BY's polygamy now. If you go to the Lion House there isn't the portrait of his wives hanging on the wall like there was when I was a child, nor do they discuss it, neither do they in the St. George home. On the website above it lists all the presidents of the church and if you click on "Significant Events", in all the ones that lived polygamy they exclude their wives names, but all that didn't live it, include their wives names. I've posted this in the past but you may not have seen it or cared about it, either way.

[canard78]

I did not say study; I never studied anti-Mormon drivel, but I certainly heard a ton of it as a boy some 40 to 50 years ago. The way of coming out from under a rock is just to listen. As I stated, I don't know a single teacher that only reads or says what is in a manual. Are there really people that don't know that BY was a polygamist? Be serious, just one that doesn't know about polygamy? How can this happen when the first thing out of anyone's mouth is, "Oh, you are Mormon, how many wives do you have?" or something similar. I don't buy your line; that is not personal, but I just don't buy it. No one is that naïve and that sheltered and if they are, shame on them for being so. You don't have to read anti-Mormon literature, but you cannot hide from newspapers, talk shows, etc.

I didn't say study either?? And what do you mean "shame on them for being so." Sheltered? I was raised in a church environment that followed the instructions on the tin: teach sunday school from the standard works and church publications. Avoid conjecture and "it's not doctrine but..." I did have an active interest in the gospel. I read the scriptures. I went to Book of Mormon firesides where the evidences for a geographic location was presented.

Maybe you didn't read my post. I said I was aware of polygamy growing up. I just hadn't really investigated it very much because I was a good, compliant boy who never went looking for critical content. Even after marriage, if I clicked on a site that seemed critical I'd be scrabbling for the back-button as quick as possible as if my eyes were burning.

I grew up in a fairly rural area in UK. All of my school friends were non-Mormon. None of them cared that I was. None of them knew anything of the church and didn't have any interest, so no, I didn't have some crazed son of an EV throwing anti-mormon content at me. Besides which, I was regularly taught that anti-mormon information is a pile of lies anyway. So even if they had said "why did Joseph translate with the same stone he went treasure seeking with, the one that landed him in court," I would have brushed it off as lies.

Until the last 2-3 years UK 'newspapers' and 'talkshows' have hardly given Mormons the slightest notice. We're far too small and insignificant to care about. We also don't have those awful talk-shows you have on the Wasatch front. I spent a week in Utah 2 years ago and tried to listen to the radio. I say tried... I had to change the channel so often to escape the ear-grating drivel coming through the speakers that in the end I turned it off. I don't know how you put up with it.

So no:

I didn't have friends or friends of friends asking anti-mormon questions

I didn't have news/radio programs spewing out 'anti-mormon lies'

I didn't have religious associates who asked the 'difficult questions'

The worst I had were a few inexperienced JW and EVs in France on my mission who tried to bible bash, but non of them raised any mormon history. I don't think they knew it either.

Just because we both speak English, doesn't mean I was raised in the same environment as you. UK is a very, very different experience as a Mormon. Especially in rural areas where the most challenging question people usually raise themselves to is "do you go to church or chapel?"

Feel free to presume me a liar if you like. But I genuinely grew up unaware of most of the Mormon 'skeletons' and remained so until I went outside of church approved literature to investigate it.

[canard78]

http://www.lds.org/c...nts/leaders.jsp

They hide BY's polygamy now. If you go to the Lion House there isn't the portrait of his wives hanging on the wall like there was when I was a child, nor do they discuss it, neither do they in the St. George home. On the website above it lists all the presidents of the church and if you click on "Significant Events", in all the ones that lived polygamy they exclude their wives names, but all that didn't live it, include their wives names. I've posted this in the past but you may not have seen it or cared about it, either way.

And they continue to perpetuate the myth that the Book of Mormon was translated using the Urim and Thummim that he took from the stone box.

RECEIVED THE GOLD PLATES FROM THE ANGEL MORONI AT THE HILL CUMORAH IN UPSTATE NEW YORK. ALSO RECEIVED THE URIM AND THUMMIM, WHICH WAS USED IN TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON.

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=1&topic=events

It would be accurate to say he used them in briefly translating some of the Gold Plates (some of 116 pages apparently, but even Harris talks about the stone in the hat). All eye-witnesses of the process say he had his head in a hat with the treasure seeking rock at the bottom of it. But that's not on the timeline. I guess they've decided to hide that too.

I know someone will probably now give me a list of 4-5 Ensign articles from the last 100 years using a head in hat reference. In my view, 4-5 vague references while all other material give the misleading Nephite Interpreter summary is what I call 'hiding.'

The above timeline... actually let me correct that... the entirety of lds.org has no mention anywhere of him marrying other men's wives. That's most certainly 'hidden.'

[Deborah]

There is no such thing as "hidden" history. It is either not documented, not published, misunderstood, forgotten or thought of as unimportant to the message for today, and even more important to the church today uncorroborated with actual facts. And yes many traditions are taught which carry on myths. But that is the result of ignorance not deliberate misleading.

I find the same arguments over and over about the church hiding it's history but then evidence is presented to show how many times and for how many years it has been discussed. And what is the reaction, that the church didn't make it a priority and teach every little tidbit at the very beginning of teaching.

A testimony of Joseph Smith and the BOM or even the church shouldn't be based on how he translated or how many wives he might have had but on the testimony of the spirit based on what things he gave us, including many doctrines lost to man through Apostasy.

How does one have a testimony in one moment born of the Spirit and then in reading something startling that testimony is gone? Why doesn't one maintain perspective and accept there are things we don't understand right now but I'm going to hold on what I already know, by the Spirit. Take how the BOM was translated. What does that have to do with the fact of the BOM and it's glorious message and detailed passages on faith and resurrection. To add to this, Joseph Smith only stated that he translated by the spirit and power of God. Any details otherwise come second and third hand. Why not wait until he himself can tell you and why blame the church because they choose the simplest method of portraying how it might have been done.

[Tacenda]

And they continue to perpetuate the myth that the Book of Mormon was translated using the Urim and Thummim that he took from the stone box.

http://www.lds.org/c...=1&topic=events

It would be accurate to say he used them in briefly translating some of the Gold Plates (some of 116 pages apparently, but even Harris talks about the stone in the hat). All eye-witnesses of the process say he had his head in a hat with the treasure seeking rock at the bottom of it. But that's not on the timeline. I guess they've decided to hide that too.

I know someone will probably now give me a list of 4-5 Ensign articles from the last 100 years using a head in hat reference. In my view, 4-5 vague references while all other material give the misleading Nephite Interpreter summary is what I call 'hiding.'

The above timeline... actually let me correct that... the entirety of lds.org has no mention anywhere of him marrying other men's wives. That's most certainly 'hidden.'

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for things like this. And it hurts to be the bad guy in complaining about something that hurt so much in the end. I'd always believed BY and the others after him were just taking care of the widows. Until I stumbled across a website dealing with JS's wives and some of them polyandrus. In fact it was if I was in a wreck and everything was slow motion. I remember distinctly standing up and going outside and my neighbor was out in her yard, and I walked up to her, she's LDS, and asked if she knew about it. It was so new to me I had no idea I'd hurt anyones testimony. Luckily this neighbor was shock proof, her mom is a nonmember and had told her every anti mormon trick in the book. So she immediately discounted what I was saying as if it was anti. And then the layering of new info and spending hours, days, months and now years studying it, has unfolded truth. Have you ever heard that people study their way out of the church, I never knew what that meant until now. But I'm sticking to the business of hope that the church will shed light and shed any doctrine out there that shouldn't have existed. And maybe truly become a Christian church.

[Deborah]

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.

First of all I've taught many years and deviating from the manual is part of teaching to meet the needs of the class. What the church means by deviating from the manual is not bring in controversial sources or sources not in keeping with the spirit of building testimonies.

As to BY's polygamy. Seriously? It's in the history books I read at school or any book that talks about the settling of the West. And what pray tell does teaching about polygamy no longer practiced for a hundred years have to do with trusting the church. Besides which I've heard it taught throughout the years and the youth groups I've taught are fully aware of the polygamy of the past and make jokes about it.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Deborah

[Tacenda]

There is no such thing as "hidden" history. It is either not documented, not published, misunderstood, forgotten or thought of as unimportant to the message for today, and even more important to the church today uncorroborated with actual facts. And yes many traditions are taught which carry on myths. But that is the result of ignorance not deliberate misleading.

I find the same arguments over and over about the church hiding it's history but then evidence is presented to show how many times and for how many years it has been discussed. And what is the reaction, that the church didn't make it a priority and teach every little tidbit at the very beginning of teaching.

A testimony of Joseph Smith and the BOM or even the church shouldn't be based on how he translated or how many wives he might have had but on the testimony of the spirit based on what things he gave us, including many doctrines lost to man through Apostasy.

How does one have a testimony in one moment born of the Spirit and then in reading something startling that testimony is gone? Why doesn't one maintain perspective and accept there are things we don't understand right now but I'm going to hold on what I already know, by the Spirit. Take how the BOM was translated. What does that have to do with the fact of the BOM and it's glorious message and detailed passages on faith and resurrection. To add to this, Joseph Smith only stated that he translated by the spirit and power of God. Any details otherwise come second and third hand. Why not wait until he himself can tell you and why blame the church because they choose the simplest method of portraying how it might have been done.

How big does a shelf have to be? Or a warehouse? "To Each His Own" here!

ETA: Ran out of posts Deborah, but to answer to the last post to me, I'd have to say, you are one of the lucky ones to have the spirit tell you it's true. But in the scriptures it says this....

Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences

1 Peter 3:15- We too should persuade people, not by telling them to follow their emotions, but by giving them reasons: evidence from God's word.

Acts 17:11 - To know whether or not some teaching is true, we should search the Scriptures daily, not pray for an emotional experience.

Galatians 1:8,9; 1 John 4:1,6; 2 John 9-11 - Many false prophets are in the world. How do we know who speaks the truth? Not by feelings, but by comparing what men teach to the true gospel recorded in the New Testament.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Tacenda

[Glenn101]

Your question, especially the "really," seems a little presumptuous. But I'll answer you anyway. Yes, absolutely. I could have stood up 12 months and said with absolute certainty and unequivocal conviction:

- I know Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in the grove in 1820

- I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God and a translation of the record, lives and testimonies of ancient prophets and leaders. One day we really will meet Nephi, Alma and Moroni at the Judgement Bar and give an account of how we used and applied their testimonies.

- I know this is the only true and living church on the earth.

Thanks for your answer. I was not being presumptuous, because I am standing here (figuratively speaking) looking at same things that you are looking at, the same information, but I have no doubts about the revelations I have received because of that information. I do not doubt that Jesus lives and that he paid for my sins in the Garden of Gethsemanee, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, or that he translated the Book of Mormon through the power and gift of God. I asked those questions long ago and I received answers that were unequivocal in confirmation. Whenever information comes along that may raise questions in people's minds, I am brought back to those series of revelations, that affirmed those things.

There was a time I had an anxiety attack because I had been asked questions that, at the time, I could not answer. So, I again did some praying. Actually, it was more of a pondering situation. However, the answer came to me so vividly it was as if a voice was whispering in my ear, "I have already answered that question for you once." The implication was clear to me.

Go back and read Deborah's post if you have not done so already. She makes some really good points.

You will not find your answers in history.

Your point about the Priesthood ban misses the mark. You are accusing Brigham Young basically of lying about the ban when he declared it was from the Lord or not knowing what he was doing as a prophet. Then accusing a whole succession of prophets of blindly following Brigham's lead. It is not an indictment the revelation was not published. Just think about the restoration of the Melchizadek Priesthood. It was not written down and published. Unless we are given a revelation that the ban was in error, we are left with the declarations of several prophets that it was from the Lord, no matter how much you may or may not like it. But that is for another thread.

As I have said repeatedly, we do not have enough information to judge Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet since, especially on the priesthood ban, or polygamy, or the polyandry which was not polyandry.

Glenn

Edited June 23, 2013 by Glenn101

[Deborah]

But I'm sticking to the business of hope that the church will shed light and shed any doctrine out there that shouldn't have existed. And maybe truly become a Christian church.

Given that plural marriage is part of the OT and in fact according to many scholars was also in practice at the time of Christ, you can't be talking about his as a "doctrine that shouldn't have existed." And I know the new thing among Apologists is to say that it wasn't practiced to help the widows, etc, I don't believe that is totally true. Sure it was to fulfill the restoration of all things and certainly a way to raise righteous seed (many future Apostles and Prophets came from plural marriages) but it also did provide for women who otherwise in that day would not have been able to provide for themselves.

[Deborah]

How big does a shelf have to be? Or a warehouse? "To Each His Own" here!

How many excuses do you want to make for yourself? A testimony is a personal responsibility. It is either born of the spirit or it's something else. If it is truly born of the spirit it will not be easily overcome by those things one doesn't yet understand. It only becomes a problem when we allow those things to take over and the testimony is shuffled to the back and in then finally rationalized to be something other than what it actually was.

[Deborah]

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.

Well, the purpose of missionary work is to introduce the BOM and the restoration of the gospel. But since most Books of Mormon are published in the same volume as the PoGP and D&C what is the issue. The church is founded on the fact that the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God by a prophet of God. If the BOM is not true then neither is the rest, but the truth of the BOM isn't so much in how it was translated, other than the gift and power of God, but by what is in it. Furthermore there are many descriptions of how Joseph translated the plates so to say one method isn't true while another is, isn't exactuly accurate either. We do know from some testimony that he needed a focus, like a stone, in the beginning, but later was able to do it purely by the spirit.

[canard78]

How does one have a testimony in one moment born of the Spirit and then in reading something startling that testimony is gone? Why doesn't one maintain perspective and accept there are things we don't understand right now but I'm going to hold on what I already know, by the Spirit. Take how the BOM was translated. What does that have to do with the fact of the BOM and it's glorious message and detailed passages on faith and resurrection. To add to this, Joseph Smith only stated that he translated by the spirit and power of God. Any details otherwise come second and third hand. Why not wait until he himself can tell you and why blame the church because they choose the simplest method of portraying how it might have been done.

I won't presume this was 'at' me and was probably a more general comment about those who have faith struggles when reading church history.

But what's interesting about this and several other comments on this thread who take a defensive position is it's implied there's something 'wrong' with the person, but nothing wrong with the history or the (claimed) hiding of it.

Words/phrases like "did you really have a testimony" or "naive" or "just don't buy it" or "shame on them." And for you in your comment "in one moment... the testimony is gone."

For me, at least, none of the above apply. I did have a testimony, I was well-read but broadly unaware of some of the 'hidden history' and it's certainly not a testimony that has gone in a moment. I've fought for it, studied all and every side as much as possible. It has been over a year of studying this for many, many long hours. This isn't some flippant game of throwing away old toys or socks.

[Deborah]

For me, at least, none of the above apply. I did have a testimony, I was well-read but broadly unaware of some of the 'hidden history' and it's certainly not a testimony that has gone in a moment. I've fought for it, studied all and every side as much as possible. It has been over a year of studying this for many, many long hours. This isn't some flippant game of throwing away old toys or socks.

True it was a general statement in relative terms of "gone in a moment." My question is, and it is a sincere one, is what did you study in trying to hold on that testimony. The reason I ask is because I have family members who were some of the most devout members you would ever know, but who started looking at some of the older writings and began questioning the modern church. The problem was they kept studying the controversial stuff rather than focusing on the scriptures, serving others and praying for understanding and patience. A testimony is a choice and something you have to work at to constantly build and rebuild.

I want to tell you I've been through my own crises of faith on more than one occasion and it would have been so much easier to walk away from it all but I could not get rid of that original testimony I had many years ago; if I questioned that then I had to question everything I ever thought I knew. Restoration of my testimony came in focusing on the scriptures, in particular the more inspiring passages such as in Alma and D&C 120 and 121. I knew that these passages were from God. And I know a mere man did not write them, particularly a man like Joseph Smith. I think once that testimony is again firmly entrenched it is safe to study those more controversial issues, and at that point a surprising thing will happen. You will gain an understanding and conviction you never had before.

Now that I have studied even more and most particularly about the Prophet Joseph, and learned about his human weaknesses, the more convinced I am the church is true, the BOM is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet. God's hand had to be in all these things because the mortal Joseph with all his faults could not have done it without that.

[canard78]

Thanks for your answer. I was not being presumptuous, because I am standing here (figuratively speaking) looking at same things that you are looking at, the same information, but I have no doubts about the revelations I have received because of that information.

That is indeed something I also find fascinating. You and I have access to broadly the same information. But reach different conclusions. I suppose that's part of the spice of life. Americans had access to all the same information in 2012 and yet were split half/half on which man to vote for. That's just one example among millions. We all go through life with similar access to similar information. And yet we reach different conclusions.

We even have the same access to the same God. And reach millions of different understandings of who he is and why we are here. I was sat in a class which discussed the 'Obedience brings blessings' talk from April Sunday morning session. We all had the same access to the same talk... and yet there was huge diversity in the way people read and understood the implications of what the message taught us.

I do not doubt that Jesus lives and that he paid for my sins in the Garden of Gethsemanee, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, or that he translated the Book of Mormon through the power and gift of God. I asked those questions long ago and I received answers that were unequivocal in confirmation. Whenever information comes along that may raise questions in people's minds, I am brought back to those series of revelations, that affirmed those things.

There was a time I had an anxiety attack because I had been asked questions that, at the time, I could not answer. So, I again did some praying. Actually, it was more of a pondering situation. However, the answer came to me so vividly it was as if a voice was whispering in my ear, "I have already answered that question for you once." The implication was clear to me.

Go back and read Deborah's post if you have not done so already. She makes some really good points.

You will not find your answers in history.

And yet I have.

I also have read and replied to Deborah. It displays the same presumptions made by so many whose faith is undented by history. Just because it doesn't affect hers and yours doesn't mean it wont effect others. And that doesn't mean their faith was inferior, just that their paradigm was/is different.

Your point about the Priesthood ban misses the mark. You are accusing Brigham Young basically of lying about the ban when he declared it was from the Lord or not knowing what he was doing as a prophet. Then accusing a whole succession of prophets of blindly following Brigham's lead. It is not an indictment the revelation was not published. Just think about the restoration of the Melchizadek Priesthood. It was not written down and published. Unless we are given a revelation that the ban was in error, we are left with the declarations of several prophets that it was from the Lord, no matter how much you may or may not like it. But that is for another thread.

As I have said repeatedly, we do not have enough information to judge Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet since, especially on the priesthood ban, or polygamy, or the polyandry which was not polyandry.

Glenn

It was indeed for another thread which was unfortunately locked (I couldn't tell why). In that thread no-one was able to provide any convincing information that showed the practice was anything other than instigated and perpetuated through ignorance and prejudice. I'll happily open a new thread on the topic, if you feel you have evidence to the contrary.

[Deborah]

Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences

If you think receiving the spirit is just an "emotional" experience than you do not know what it is. In fact I was so matter of fact about it that the missionaries weren't sure I was even interested. It was as much an intellectual experience as a powerful feeling that I had finally found what I was looking for. And you are correct, one cannot rely on just the spirit but must constantly feed it with study and thoughtful meditation on those things. You have to understand when I found the church at age 14 I had already been reading the Bible and studying many different religions trying to find out which one was right and had actually come to the conclusion that none of the ones I read about were. but as soon as I walked into an LDS church building and talked to the missionaries, I knew with a profound surety that this is what I had been searching for.

[Nevo]

But what's interesting about this and several other comments on this thread who take a defensive position is it's implied there's something 'wrong' with the person, but nothing wrong with the history or the (claimed) hiding of it.

Words/phrases like "did you really have a testimony" or "naive" or "just don't buy it" or "shame on them." And for you in your comment "in one moment... the testimony is gone."

For me, at least, none of the above apply. I did have a testimony, I was well-read but broadly unaware of some of the 'hidden history' and it's certainly not a testimony that has gone in a moment. I've fought for it, studied all and every side as much as possible. It has been over a year of studying this for many, many long hours. This isn't some flippant game of throwing away old toys or socks.

As you can see, canard78, this board isn't particularly sympathetic to people in your situation. The default response is always that the Church doesn't hide its history, and in any case the history doesn't matter, and anyone claiming to be experiencing a faith crisis is presumed never to have had a "real" testimony, not to have nurtured it properly, or done something to lose the Spirit. The bottom line is that the fault for your disillusionment lies entirely with you.

For that reason, this board is the last place I'd ever send someone who was sincerely struggling as the experience would likely only drive them further away from the Church.

[Deborah]

The bottom line is that the fault for your disillusionment lies entirely with you.

I know you are being sarcastic in saying this but I really wonder why you think the fault would lie anywhere else. As has been pointed out two people see the same information and two people react differently. It certainly can't be the information that makes the difference. My personal opionin is that there are many factors that go into these choices we make and sometimes there are other things going on in a person's life that make the choice to leave the church easier than for others. I wonder if someone was to really examine their circumstances if they wouldn't find some of those other factors besides "the church hid it from me". Does a child disown his parents when he finds out Santa isn't real. If he does there is certainly something else going on.

[canard78]

True it was a general statement in relative terms of "gone in a moment." My question is, and it is a sincere one, is what did you study in trying to hold on that testimony. The reason I ask is because I have family members who were some of the most devout members you would ever know, but who started looking at some of the older writings and began questioning the modern church. The problem was they kept studying the controversial stuff rather than focusing on the scriptures, serving others and praying for understanding and patience. A testimony is a choice and something you have to work at to constantly build and rebuild.

I want to tell you I've been through my own crises of faith on more than one occasion and it would have been so much easier to walk away from it all but I could not get rid of that original testimony I had many years ago; if I questioned that then I had to question everything I ever thought I knew. Restoration of my testimony came in focusing on the scriptures, in particular the more inspiring passages such as in Alma and D&C 120 and 121. I knew that these passages were from God. And I know a mere man did not write them, particularly a man like Joseph Smith. I think once that testimony is again firmly entrenched it is safe to study those more controversial issues, and at that point a surprising thing will happen. You will gain an understanding and conviction you never had before.

Now that I have studied even more and most particularly about the Prophet Joseph, and learned about his human weaknesses, the more convinced I am the church is true, the BOM is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet. God's hand had to be in all these things because the mortal Joseph with all his faults could not have done it without that.

I've continued to study the scriptures and out of 'the best books.' I still consider the Book of Mormon to be inspired and scripture. I just don't consider that to support the exclusivity claims we build on top of it.

[Deborah]

I've continued to study the scriptures and out of 'the best books.' I still consider the Book of Mormon to be inspired and scripture. I just don't consider that to support the exclusivity claims we build on top of it.

Here is how I look at the "exclusivity" claims. As you know the church teaches truth is to be found in other churches and I believe that people find faith and comfort in those other churches. The exclusive part comes in where the church is the only one to have the Priesthood authority to adminitster ordinances of salvation and exaltation. As such we are God's administrative arm on earth, but we are not the exclusive method to bring people to God. Which is why we do temple work and why this will continue into the Millennium. How many of us had relatives we knew and loved but didn't accept the church in this life. We still do the temple work for them once they are gone. We hope that once the veil is lifted they will be able to see the truth. There are so many factors that keep people away from the church and sometimes I believe it's because they can do a greater good and fulfill the Lord's purposes for them outside the church.

[Tacenda]

As you can see, canard78, this board isn't particularly sympathetic to people in your situation. The default response is always that the Church doesn't hide its history, and in any case the history doesn't matter, and anyone claiming to be experiencing a faith crisis is presumed never to have had a "real" testimony, not to have nurtured it properly, or done something to lose the Spirit. The bottom line is that the fault for your disillusionment lies entirely with you.

For that reason, this board is the last place I'd ever send someone who was sincerely struggling as the experience would likely only drive them further away from the Church.

And to me, this board saved the ounce of a testimony I had left by allowing me to "question" not "wonder" as a counselor once put forth during a TR interview when I told him I struggled about JS' s polygamy without going into detail, the latter being better than the former. In other words it's not ok to question but ok to wonder. Therefore the beauty of this board, and people that share testimonies even in knowing all the facts just as Deborah just shared, perfect example!

[canard78]

As you can see, canard78, this board isn't particularly sympathetic to people in your situation. The default response is always that the Church doesn't hide its history, and in any case the history doesn't matter, and anyone claiming to be experiencing a faith crisis is presumed never to have had a "real" testimony, not to have nurtured it properly, or done something to lose the Spirit. The bottom line is that the fault for your disillusionment lies entirely with you.

For that reason, this board is the last place I'd ever send someone who was sincerely struggling as the experience would likely only drive them further away from the Church.

You're right, and I appreciate your balanced contribution on the board as one of the moderate voices in all of this.

I took a break of about 2 months from the board at the beginning of this year (I think... maybe it wasn't that long). I realised that just because I disagreed passionately with an individual it didn't mean I'd also disagree on the same point with the church.

In the end I returned because I wanted a place to 'test' my conclusions (or what was forming into conclusions). There really doesn't seem to be a place like it online. Most of the rest are either too far removed to provide anything other than a validation of my concerns or are too ill-read to want to engage in the discussion. As I've always tried to express... this isn't a fun experience for me. I'm not 'playing.' It's a genuine attempt to reconcile and resolve concerns and issues.

[canard78]

Here is how I look at the "exclusivity" claims. As you know the church teaches truth is to be found in other churches and I believe that people find faith and comfort in those other churches. The exclusive part comes in where the church is the only one to have the Priesthood authority to adminitster ordinances of salvation and exaltation. As such we are God's administrative arm on earth, but we are not the exclusive method to bring people to God. Which is why we do temple work and why this will continue into the Millennium. How many of us had relatives we knew and loved but didn't accept the church in this life. We still do the temple work for them once they are gone. We hope that once the veil is lifted they will be able to see the truth. There are so many factors that keep people away from the church and sometimes I believe it's because they can do a greater good and fulfill the Lord's purposes for them outside the church.

We make a great attempt to tone down our exclusivity claims these days. I'm glad we do. I hope it goes further in future. I hope we accept and preach more often that we are one of many expressions of God's love and one of millions of ways of working towards godliness (even billions given I believe in an 'indivudualised curriculum;).

But as to the only ones with the priesthood and the ability to perform ordinances to save our relatives. I don't think anyone else needs those ordinances other than those that participate in it. They are effective tools for generating faith in God and service to others. Perhaps the best form of service given no 'pay-back' is possible. I don't think God is limited by Mormon proxy acts in his ability to give non-Mormon children the opportunity to live in an eternal family unit should He and they want to. The priesthood and temple is for Mormons as a tool to enable better people.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

IOW If the Church doesn't spoon feed everyone in every detail of everyone's thoughts we're somehow guilty of hiding our history.