What Is Hidden History?

[Nevo]

And to me, this board saved the ounce of a testimony I had left . . .

I'm glad to hear it, Tacenda. But I still wouldn't recommend this board to a member struggling with doubt. Perhaps because this is essentially a debate board, anyone posing challenging questions is more likely to find defensiveness and spin than an acknowledgment and frank discussion of difficulties.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Nevo

[why me]

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.

But there is a point to all this. The church is not hiding information. Much was published in the past. So, what we are dealing with is not hidden history but a change in direction of the church. Is that anything to leave a faith for? A change in direction? Most likely no. And yet, some do leave the church over what the critics claim about hidden history. Unfortunately.

[rpn]

Things that mortals think of as "facts" may not be facts at all (eg. that the earth was flat, or that autism was caused by cold mothering,etc.). Facts that scientists or historians see as such, may not be truth at all. So basing a testimony on the currently known facts, doesn't ever assure one has learned the full truth of any matter.

The four fold mission of the church is to perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and care for the poor and needy ---- none of which require knowing all the historical facts about some else's lives, nor that those who were church leaders followed all the commandments or were good people. Presumably the things that are in the manuals are believed to help fulfill the church mission, and are necessary for the current member's growth and inspiration so they can make their own decisions and seek their own inspiration.

Is it possible that those writing the manuals didn't know the info themselves, and therefore weren't in any position to seek inspiration about whether the info should have had a place in the manual. Of course, even likely. Ultimately, how someone else lived their life, lived the Gospel, has nothing whatever to do with our individual responsibility and opportunity to live consistent with God's will.

[why me]

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.

It is unfortunate about your relatives. What I find interesting is just how people can be turned off by the more strange things lds prophets said, in particular BY and JS. However, what they really do not understand is that when members read the Discourses of both men years ago, no one considered such things doctrine. But they did read them with interest and understood that both men were dealing with what was known in the 19th century by studying and intellect. We never even thought that such men should have a 20th century brain or now a 21st century brain. They dealt their hand with the deck of cards that they were given.

[why me]

Is it possible that those writing the manuals didn't know the info themselves, and therefore weren't in any position to seek inspiration about whether the info should have had a place in the manual. Of course, even likely. Ultimately, how someone else lived their life, lived the Gospel, has nothing whatever to do with our individual responsibility and opportunity to live consistent with God's will.

I think that we may dealing with two churches in salt lake. One wishes to keep the status quo and keep on with the same old same old. And the other church wishes to put back some information that was discussed years ago to head off the harmful influences of the Internet. Who is winning? One just needs to see the changes in the Ensign to see the more less exciting church. The articles are not exactly thrilling these days and yet, small tidbits are appearing now. Just my humble opinion.

[why me]

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.

I don't think that this is true. At least for me what I try to point out was that much was known in the past. I knew about the head in the hat, the seer stones, the breastplates, etc. I knew about the various accounts of the visions and the problems with the discourses of BY because this was all in the ensign, including JSs polygamy and one wife living with him etc.

So, my point is simple. It is not being hidden but there is a change in direction over the last several years not to mention what was mentioned in the past in church periodicals or by church writers publishing in desseret books. And so, the beef should be with the change of direction and not with the 'hiding'. And why lose faith over it?

[Thinking]

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

How did you get everyone's thoughts out of the OP?

[Palerider]

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.

Huge Amen to that!

[Palerider]

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.

Whoaaa..........I think he's being straight up. I don't read sarcasm here at all.

[Palerider]

It is unfortunate about your relatives. What I find interesting is just how people can be turned off by the more strange things lds prophets said, in particular BY and JS. However, what they really do not understand is that when members read the Discourses of both men years ago, no one considered such things doctrine. But they did read them with interest and understood that both men were dealing with what was known in the 19th century by studying and intellect. We never even thought that such men should have a 20th century brain or now a 21st century brain. They dealt their hand with the deck of cards that they were given.

Preface to the Journal of Discourses by Apostle George Q. Cannon:

"The Journal of Discourses ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"

I think at the time the general church membership viewed the Journal of Discourses as somewhat more than the interesting musings of religious men.........

Edited June 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Calm]

- 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.

I would be greatly concerned with any organization that was attempted to be organized in a full and final form that was meant to last more than one generation. The point of continuing revelation for me is that each generation can have the Church tailormaded to its needs...now this may mean there is somewhat of a lag so that it is never perfectly tailored, but there should be enough there to provide what the individual needs in order to direct him or her in the best way to prepare him/herself to seek out and face the Lord. I don't remember the Church or its leaders ever making the claim the Church was finished in its formation or that change itself wasn't desirable for the Church, both for individual members or as an organization. In fact, having to keep on striving to improve both as individuals and in our contributions to the organization to make it work and even alter it is part of the process of getting us ready to fully receive the oneness experience with God in my view.

[thesometimesaint]

How did you get everyone's thoughts out of the OP?

I'm pretty sure that someone in the Church or out of it has stumbled across what someone has thought about the Church that may or may not be what the Church actually teaches. IE; It rose to ridiculous levels with US elections of 2012.

[thesometimesaint]

Preface to the Journal of Discourses by Apostle George Q. Cannon:

"The Journal of Discourses ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"

I think at the time the general church membership viewed the Journal of Discourses as somewhat more than the interesting musings of religious men.........

I must have missed when we put our JoD in the D&C. Please where can I find it in my D&C?

[Thinking]

So, my point is simple. It is not being hidden but there is a change in direction over the last several years not to mention what was mentioned in the past in church periodicals or by church writers publishing in desseret books. And so, the beef should be with the change of direction and not with the 'hiding'. And why lose faith over it?

In the OP I asked the following question.

“Are there different levels of hidden history?”

Not mentioning something would certainly fall into one of the levels.

[Calm]

I am curious to know others' POV on this: If something is put into Special Collections in a library where one has to go an extra step or two to gain access as opposed to just picking a book off the shelf and checking it out with proper id, do you consider it "hidden" and if so, why and if not, why not?

Does a bookstore that specializes in certain topic "hiding" anything? If so, why and if not, why not?

Is a bookstore that allows anyone to purchase as long as they have the money a more accessible organization than a library that requires a membership, but no fee? If so, why and if not, why not?

Do you believe a government should be required to provide all its materials in any language someone requests or only in the official language or for any other languages a significant minority uses (say over 3% of the population). Or only legal materials that may result in legal problems for residents and visitors but not legal materials that could be beneficial?

I am wondering if people's general views on what is and isn't 'full access' reflects their views on how the Church presents or does not present related information.

Edited June 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

Not mentioning something would certainly fall into one of the levels.

Well, here we have a problem. What should be mentioned about church history? I am afraid that it is a no win for the church for the simple reason, critics will never be satisfied about what was told and how it was told. Let me put it this way. It would be the same for me to keep pounding away at the catholic or lutheran church to have the leadership tell everything to its membership about their church's history. Is it really possible? And then to tell them to have such lessons every 3 years. Doesn't it sound a little strange?

[why me]

Preface to the Journal of Discourses by Apostle George Q. Cannon:

"The Journal of Discourses ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"

I think at the time the general church membership viewed the Journal of Discourses as somewhat more than the interesting musings of religious men.........

You would not be right. We viewed the JoD has something that can be read because of interest but not because of doctrine. Sure it was interesting what was said at that time but we all knew that much was opinion and not doctrine. We also knew that these men were dealing with the knowledge that they had for that time. They were going through the same process as every one else: learn as one goes along and fumble along the way. Such were the discourses. It reminds me of the volumes that I saw in a member's house not that long ago. They lined the shelf and were books of interest. When we gave talks, we would look in them and find something to support what we wanted to say. And leave the rest.

[why me]

I must have missed when we put our JoD in the D&C. Please where can I find it in my D&C?

I am sure that if one wishes to buy these books one can by going to ebay etc. But you are correct. No one considered what was in these books doctrine. But we did consider these books interesting. What was important was what the GAs were saying for that time. For us, however, we were looking for guidance in our own time. And this was not exactly found in the JoDs of the General Authorities a hundred years ago etc. But with what was said by the GAs in our own time.

[Calm]

Weren't the JoD first only published in England and not available for those in the States? Did DeseretNews or some other publication serve the same purpose in the US, publishing all the sermons given in the Tabernacle or Conference and such others as viewed as important? And at what time did the JoD become available in the States?

Edited June 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure that if one wishes to buy these books one can by going to ebay etc. But you are correct. No one considered what was in these books doctrine. But we did consider these books interesting. What was important was what the GAs were saying for that time. For us, however, we were looking for guidance in our own time. And this was not exactly found in the JoDs of the General Authorities a hundred years ago etc. But with what was said by the GAs in our own time.

They're online too. http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses

[Wiki Wonka]

Preface to the Journal of Discourses by Apostle George Q. Cannon:

"The Journal of Discourses ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'"

I think at the time the general church membership viewed the Journal of Discourses as somewhat more than the interesting musings of religious men.........

The definition of what comprised the "standard works" of the Church was different back then.

1849

Thomas D. Brown, [for sale] Millennial Star 11. 6 (March 15, 1849): 96. “This [pamphlet, Voice of Warning] is now a standard work, having been long tried and approved, and I would earnestly recommend all who wish to do good to lend it to the honest enquirer amongst the first of our books. How many now in the kingdom of God give thanks because they read the ‘Voice of Warning?’

1853

“Australian Mission,” Elder Augustus Farnham, Sydney, Australia, July 25, 1853. Millennial Star 15. 47 (November 19, 1853): 766-767. President S. W. Richards…. We wish you to forward us more of O Pratt’s works complete and bound, 200 more Hymn Books, 100 Books of Mormon, 100 Doctrine and Covenants, more Voice of Warning, and Spencer’s Letters, 100 O. Pratt’s work on Celestial Marriage. You may depend upon us forwarding the money as speedily as possible. I have no doubt, that when these books come to hand, they will give an increased impetus to the work here, and it will require a constant and regular supply of the Standard Works to keep up with the movement. We hope you will be able to supply us with them. (767)

1855

Broadside by Parley P. Pratt, Millennial Star 17. 20 (May 16, 1855) announcing the “Mormon Book Depot, and General Agency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the Pacific Coast. PARLEY P. PRATT respectfully announces to the public, that he has established an Office and Book Depot in San Francisco, Cal., near the corner of Dupont and Sacramento Streets, where will be constantly on hand and for sale the Standard Works of said Church, among the most noted of which are the following, viz.--Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Voice of Warning, O. Pratt’s Works, Key to the Science of Theology, Pearl of Great Price, Spencer’s Letters, Hymn Books, And a variety of Periodicals, Debates, Defences, Tracts, &c., &c. San Francisco, March 2, 1855.” It also indicates that he is in correspondence with LDS in foreign countries, and can provide works in French, German, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Welsh. (319).

Edited June 23, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[CV75]

If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

Yes.

Some examples of hidden history:

Ether 3:21, “And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man.”

3 Nephi 26: 16 “Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the multitude gathered themselves together, and they both saw and heard these children; yea, even babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous things; and the things which they did utter were forbidden that there should not any man write them.”

Also the “sealed book,” the “sealed portion,” the book Hilkiah found, any lost scripture, etc. I'm sure the LDS Church has experienced all these kinds of "hiding," but nothing that should be construed as malicious, devious, negligent or corrupt.

[Palerider]

I must have missed when we put our JoD in the D&C. Please where can I find it in my D&C?

Ask George when you see him.

[bcuzbcuz]

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

I willingly admit that my version of the 'fill in the blanks' was inflammatory. But my life experiences have taught me that very few "sinners" are repentant, even when caught red-handed. There is always an excuse, a justification. I remember being involved in the confrontation of a relative who had beaten and abused his wife for some forty years. The wife abuse was incontravertable. Yet when confronted, instead of humbly admitting guilt, this man verbally attacked his accussors. He called his children, "ungrateful, respectless and uncaring, who made him regret ever having fathered them." There was no humility, quite the contrary.

Before the wrongdoer is disclosed, every effort is made to keep the deeds secret. Once disclosed it is easy to deny the hiding, to lay the responsibilty on the wronged, for not being observant enough, to not seeing the obvious.

Who benefits from keeping discomforting information from those that should be made aware?

[Traela]

I can't help thinking that a lot of what is considered "hiding our history" is simply the natural consequence of moving from a Utah-based church to a world-wide one, plus the added effect of temporal distance.

At one point, most people knew quite a lot of church history because their parents or grandparents had lived it, or their neighbor's parents or grandparents had. I think there was the assumption that none of this really had to be talked about officially, because everyone already knew it. This gave the Church the ability to give just the basic facts, knowing that members would fill in the details. But time passes, the church gets more widespread, and people are suddenly learning things that in earlier times would have been casually alluded to in Seminary or Sunday School.