What Is Hidden History?

[Thinking]

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

Right after the Lectures on Faith.

[Palerider]

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?

Actually a number of months ago I told (here) of an experience, where out of curiosity I attended a Lutheran Church and that as a part of their Sunday School, they were telling the story of one of their early missions to America in the 1700's. The story was focused upon a minister who had been overzealous in his administration and made some unwise choices including committing adultery with one of his flock. I was amazed at how open and forthright they were about it.

The reaction from most on this site was savage and quickly turned into an attack on the Lutheran Church itself which I found to be looney. Nobody seemed to get the point that at least in this case the Lutheran's were being quite open about the problem that had existed and the steps they took to solve it.

[Glenn101]

There is always going to be a dissonance between faith and reason, at least until everything is revealed to us in all of its plainess.I am not trying to change anyone's mind about any of the issues here. My only purpose has been to point out that reason is not playing with a full deck here on this earth, i.e. not all of the facts, not even close to all of the facts, and terrible mistakes have been made in this mortal world by good people making decisions based solely upon reason according to the known facts. I have already mentioned people convicted of heinous crimes later exonerayd by DNA evidence.

In the gospel, I believe it to be a dangerous thing, spiritually when one begins to distrust themselves, their spiritual selves and their spiritual experiences when faced with some uncomfortable facts. A person can reason themselves out of the church and out of faith altogether if faith is allowed to be overpowered by reason altogether.

Becaue, by reason alone, without all of the facts, and with some uncomfortable facts, we can doubt the very existence of God and the atonement of Jesus.

Glenn

[Palerider]

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.

Who could argue with that?

[Glenn101]

Actually a number of months ago I told (here) of an experience, where out of curiosity I attended a Lutheran Church and that as a part of their Sunday School, they were telling the story of one of their early missions to America in the 1700's. The story was focused upon a minister who had been overzealous in his administration and made some unwise choices including committing adultery with one of his flock. I was amazed at how open and forthright they were about it.

The reaction from most on this site was savage and quickly turned into an attack on the Lutheran Church itself which I found to be looney. Nobody seemed to get the point that at least in this case the Lutheran's were being quite open about the problem that had existed and the steps they took to solve it.

Oh, like the steps that were taken to deal with the immorality of John C. Bennett and Philastus Hurlbut? That was discussed pretty openly also.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Palerider]

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).

Yes. You are correct and in order for the church to distance itself from some of the less palatable principles and doctrines taught at that time, there was a need for a "re-defining" of what were the standard works.

The next step to quietly suppressing those doctrines would be to just discourage talking about them or teaching them in the correlated curriculum.

[thesometimesaint]

Ask George when you see him.

Why would George have final say at to what is our Scripture?

[Palerider]

Oh, like the steps that were taken to deal with the immorality of John C. Bennett and Philastus Hurlbut? That was discussed pretty openly also.

Thanks,

Glenn

But why stop there? Why not go on to Joseph and Fanny?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes. You are correct and in order for the church to distance itself from some of the less palatable principles and doctrines taught at that time, there was a need for a "re-defining" of what were the standard works.

The next step to quietly suppressing those doctrines would be to just discourage talking about them or teaching them in the correlated curriculum.

Since all those materials, and more, are available to the general public with just the click of a mouse. They are hardly hidden.

Tell me everything you know. I have a minute.

[Palerider]

Why would George have final say at to what is our Scripture?

That wasn't your original question. The answer he might give to that is "I don't know why the JofD isn't there? It was certainly considered the words of the prophets when I was alive......? Can you tell me what happened to the church after I passed on? Did something go terribly wrong?"

And then you can give him the explanation you're trying to give to us and see if he buys it.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Since all those materials, and more, are available to the general public with just the click of a mouse. They are hardly hidden.

Tell me everything you know. I have a minute.

Yes! They are available and becoming more widespread all the time. More light is being shed in that dark little corner of the church and that's why they're trying to rescue Sweden right now.

I'd tell you more but your minute's up.......

[Glenn101]

But why stop there? Why not go on to Joseph and Fanny?

They were not excommunicated for immorality.

Glenn

[why me]

More light is being shed in that dark little corner of the church and that's why they're trying to rescue Sweden right now.

Sweden is in trouble? They just had a nordic conference and it was full to the brim with members. I think that you are being just a tad bit bitter. We have already pointed out that much was talked about in the past. But now there has been a change in direction. Was it right or wrong? I think that it was wrong because they misplayed the internet and the weakness of members' testimonies. But I can't blame them for that. After all who would have believed that members who felt and experienced the spirit would leave after learning something that they never knew?

How many catholics or protestants leave their faith over history or over something that they never knew? Not many. Who would have understood that mormons would. Mormons have a dark history? It certainly doesn't compare to the general history of christianity. How many christians know their history? Not many.

[Calm]

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.

I would say "especially when caught red-handed". Repentance comes from within, not from without...and someone is much more likely to repent when they feel themselves they have sinned rather than having it told to them by others. The best way, imo, to convince someone of their sin is to be an example of how it should be done. Confronting the sinner is more about holding them accountable, though it must be done when they are harming others even if it isn't likely to cause change except through fear and force.

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

I think the bolded is what is being debated in the first place. Edited June 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

But why stop there? Why not go on to Joseph and Fanny?

Fanny never said a negative word about Joseph. And her father and mother were proud of the sealing. As was her brother, all active in the church. What else do you want to know? Or should members know?

Here is what lds.org says about fanny:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/SGY7-GFL

Edited June 23, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

I was amazed at how open and forthright they were about it.

In order to compare effectively, one would have to view all of the Lutheran history and what was and was not taught. After all, like Glenn pointed out there are negative things that the Church even uses to teach on a regular basis.

[Calm]

Yes. You are correct and in order for the church to distance itself from some of the less palatable principles and doctrines taught at that time, there was a need for a "re-defining" of what were the standard works.

Because there is no other reason for language to change except for the Church to be able to distance itself from uncomfortable teachings...

[why me]

Actually a number of months ago I told (here) of an experience, where out of curiosity I attended a Lutheran Church and that as a part of their Sunday School, they were telling the story of one of their early missions to America in the 1700's. The story was focused upon a minister who had been overzealous in his administration and made some unwise choices including committing adultery with one of his flock. I was amazed at how open and forthright they were about it.

The reaction from most on this site was savage and quickly turned into an attack on the Lutheran Church itself which I found to be looney. Nobody seemed to get the point that at least in this case the Lutheran's were being quite open about the problem that had existed and the steps they took to solve it.

I would have been more impressed if they would have discussed the comments luther made about jews. And the religious wars during the reformation etc. Or how luther supported polygamy. And why. I don't think that many lutherans are that well versed in their faith's history from a critic perspective.

[Thinking]

I would have been more impressed if they would have discussed the comments luther made about jews. And the religious wars during the reformation etc. Or how luther supported polygamy. And why. I don't think that many lutherans are that well versed in their faith's history from a critic perspective.

It was one lesson.

[why me]

It was one lesson.

Just saying. What you heard was not exactly earth shattering.

[Palerider]

I would have been more impressed if they would have discussed the comments luther made about jews. And the religious wars during the reformation etc. Or how luther supported polygamy. And why. I don't think that many lutherans are that well versed in their faith's history from a critic perspective.

Exactly my point. Rather than say, "We can do better than the Lutherans" you go down this road of attacking them and saying that they didn't do enough. Didn't go near far enough.

But you attack me for using the same logic in regards to the LDS church.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander............

Edited June 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Fanny never said a negative word about Joseph. And her father and mother were proud of the sealing. As was her brother, all active in the church. What else do you want to know? Or should members know?

Here is what lds.org says about fanny:

https://familysearch...M9.2.1/SGY7-GFL

Still checking some of this out but have no current reason to doubt it, regarding Fanny's family:

"The following account was written by Jo Kester, a descendant of Fanny Alger.

Solomon and Fanny (Alger) Custer are my maternal gr-gr-grandparents and I have been researching them for over twenty years. My Mother was also a researcher for many years...My Mother stated that there was never a Mormon Church in that area and in fact, Solomon and Fanny were members of the Universalist Church of Dublin, Indiana.

Fanny's affair with Joseph Smith took place in 1835. When their relationship became public knowledge, Fanny fled from the home of Joseph and Emma Smith to be with her parents in Indiana...I also believe that she was very ashamed of her affair with Smith because she never mentioned it to her children.

My grandmother...did mention that Brigham Young..., accompanied by Fanny's brother, John Alger, did come to Indiana, before Fanny married Solomon Custer, to ask her to marry him. She answered him by saying, "You are a fine young man but I want to be an only wife."

Edited June 23, 2013 by Palerider

[TAO]

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.

No, these things are only tangents. You tell me, would you expect this stuff to be taught in 'Gospel Essentials' or 'Gospel Doctrine'. The obvious answer is doctrine. It isn't the core of the gospel - that's what essentials is. And essentials is what matters most. That isn't to say the gospel doctrine class isn't important, but the essentials are what's really critical.

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.

Perhaps that's because sources which aren't 'safe' tend to criticize the church oftentimes one-sidedly?

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.

I never said that there wasn't anything hidden. I said the hidden stuff ultimately doesn't matter. It's tangential to the gospel essentials.

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.

Of course. And nobody should be surprised when we use apologetics to counter it, nah?

[TAO]

Now there's a shocker.

It actually probably is... I'm of two minds when it comes to other people. I'm both skeptical and trusting... it's kinda weird I guess XD. In any case, the fact that I've quelled my skeptical side should speak to something.

How would you know if you don't know what it is you weren't taught?

Why does the stuff that ultimately won't matter, matter?

And who are you to determine this for everyone else?

I don't. I just said that I was happy it wasn't brought up. It'd be a distraction to what I value in the gospel.

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.

Mmm... I don't think you've talked to 'most people', so I doubt your claim =p. Furthermore, I think you underestimate the faith of our members. It's greater than you would expect. Far greater, I'd guess, in fact. And I know this because I've been around so many good examples of it. It may not be universal, but certainly the people I'm around have much greater faith than you would estimate.

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.

Let me alter that sentence a bit. "All that extra stuff just really doesn't matter a bit to me."

Why doesn't it matter to me? Because it doesn't deal with the core stuff, that I value from the gospel. It doesn't even address why I believe in the gospel. I'm not like most people, I'm distrusting of truth claims. Their attempt to make truth claims in response to truth claims, completely misses why I believe in the gospel in the first place (it doesn't even address the truth claims that matter to me). That's why it's pointless. They aren't even hitting the right target.

Everything else what?

The gospel essentials. The things that make the gospel worth breathing and living. The things that actually matter to me emotionally. That is everything for me in the church. It's why I'm here. My entire reason for believing is based on only a few truth claims, which rarely are addressed by critics, and even when they do address them, they fail to convince because there is no right answer to them, and I think my choice is more practical than the critic's choice is. That's what I mean by 'nothing else really matters'. Because it doesn't matter to me. The gospel is delicious and the alternative will never be worth it.

Of course, most don't see it this way. But that's how I see it.

The Church doesn't teach anything unique or special that isn't taught in other religions.

But it's given me my experience. That's something no other religion has given to me. That is completely Mormon.

All the other stuff is just "details" that apologists won't tie into "official doctrine" anyway.

Yeah, and why? Because what is the gospel essentials? What is the value of religion? Why believe in it? That's what really matters.

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

It depends how you define leave. If you mean actually send in a leaving letter and going off the rolls, then no, you wouldn't be correct if the stats don't lie. If you mean inactivity, that happens for various reasons, a lot of times more related to personal issues (or so it has been in my experience). Many of the inactives I have met haven't suffered from any disbelief of any sort, it's more that they just don't spend the time to go to church or other activities. Other times there are other issues. It's a very varying thing, at least from what I've seen.

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?

I rather doubt completely innocent. Joseph Smith wasn't sinless, you know. I'm pretty sure most members, though thinking he did many good things, would tell you he was far from perfect. Because that's the way all people are.

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.

Of course. Because that isn't what really matters. It's not what church is for. It's not Church's purpose.

[Calm]

The gospel is delicious and the alternative will never be worth it.