What Is Hidden History?

[KevinG]

I didn't join that long ago (25 years) and polygamy/blacks and the priesthood were two publicly discussed issues surrounding Mormonism. It took me a few years later to learn about the pepperbox pistol used by Joseph before his martyrdom. That was hidden in a glass case in the Church Museum of History and in an Institute manual.

In this day and age anyone who finds Mormon History "hidden" needs to learn to Google. Hidden History = Willful Ignorance.

- - -

Now if the issue is why doesn't the church publish every tiddling bit of trivia every generated in its history then the answer is because we're teaching the Gospel.

[canard78]

I didn't join that long ago (25 years) and polygamy/blacks and the priesthood were two publicly discussed issues surrounding Mormonism. It took me a few years later to learn about the pepperbox pistol used by Joseph before his martyrdom. That was hidden in a glass case in the Church Museum of History and in an Institute manual.

In this day and age anyone who finds Mormon History "hidden" needs to learn to Google. Hidden History = Willful Ignorance.

- - -

Now if the issue is why doesn't the church publish every tiddling bit of trivia every generated in its history then the answer is because we're teaching the Gospel.

Please find me one reference on all of lds.org that shows Joseph married other mens wives.

Thanks

[KevinG]

Please find me one reference on all of lds.org that shows Joseph married other mens wives.

Thanks

I was not aware that lds.org was the final repository of all things Mormon history. However there is a really good historian by the name of Bushman who wrote this nifty little book about Joseph you might want to check out.

[KevinG]

I guess hidden history can = "not devoting church web site space to my personal pet issue about Mormonism"

[canard78]

It has been said that Mormons teach that Church leaders are not infallible but expect them to be. I believe that problem is what causes so many, so much trouble.

No-one expects perfect people. But have you read the 14 Fundamentals recently?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

This was from ETB in 1980 and then repeated in conference in 2010.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet

4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time

I could go on but I guess you can read the rest. I'll sign off with number 14:

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer

Did the prophets lead the church astray with Blacks and the priesthood? I believe they did. I see no evidence of it being a divinely sanctioned practice. Given he ignored two dead prophets to do so (Joseph and Nephi in 2 Nep 26:33) I suppose that doesn't matter to you (given fundamental '3').

[Danzo]

Please find me one reference on all of lds.org that shows Joseph married other mens wives.

Thanks

Can you tell me when lds.org became the lds church?

[KevinG]

No-one expects perfect people. But have you read the 14 Fundamentals recently?

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

This was from ETB in 1980 and then repeated in conference in 2010.

Hmmm... the one about the prophet being inerrant must be somewhere in the hidden history.

Anyone who remembers the lessons of Zion's march knows better than to fall for that.

[KevinG]

Can you tell me when lds.org became the lds church?

You missed that part of Sunday's missionary fireside?

[Danzo]

No-one expects perfect people. But have you read the 14 Fundamentals recently?

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

This was from ETB in 1980 and then repeated in conference in 2010.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet

4. The prophet will never lead the Church astray

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time

I could go on but I guess you can read the rest. I'll sign off with number 14:

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer

Did the prophets lead the church astray with Blacks and the priesthood? I believe they did. I see no evidence of it being a divinely sanctioned practice. Given he ignored two dead prophets to do so (Joseph and Nephi in 2 Nep 26:33) I suppose that doesn't matter to you (given fundamental '3').

What are your disagreements with this 1980 talk?

Which numbers are you disagreeing with?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Danzo

[Danzo]

You missed that part of Sunday's missionary fireside?

I guess now we are going to have our callings issued by LDS.org

[canard78]

I am truly sorry you have spent all that pain, emotion and time on something that, If you believe JS translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God and that he restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ with its saving ordinances, is totally irrelevant. You are not asked to live polygamy. It is nothing you have to worry about. Try a little exercise. Think about all the things in your life. Think about which is most important. Then think about how polygamy affects them(I mean really affects them not how it might if it were being practiced). See how irrelevant it really is. Do not waste another minute on it. Why do you let such irrelevancies affect your happiness and family relations.

I don't know what else I can offer.

Since you also started the inoculation thread then it's quite easy to see where your perspectives are. Study the gospel and ignore the history.

What's interesting about this thread is it starts with a question of 'does the church hide its history.'

The answers have been in two themes:

"No it doesn't, look at these few references in the last 100 years to ___________ issue."

Or

"Why should the church teach about __________ it's not in the business of teaching history, only saving doctrine"

The second answer admits, within the answer, that hiding is happening, but argues that it doesn't matter as the church should be allowed to ignore whatever history is not conducive to teaching the gospel. That may be one perspective. But those people can't say with much credibility "it doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you."

I'm not allergic to wheat. But my friend is. When I invite them round for dinner should I serve pasta and cake and simply say "it doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you?"

[canard78]

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

That's not lds.org.

Familysearch is user generated content. He currently is listed as having 57 wives on there. I could go and add a 58th today if I wanted.

That's not a church voice adding the wives, it's a symptom of the site design.

[KevinG]

Now I know what those moms mean when they tell their children to speak in a "church voice". And all this time I thought it was about reverence.

[canard78]

Can you tell me when lds.org became the lds church?

I'm asking for a church published source that teaches polyandry. lds.org seems a reasonable start.

KevinG said "In this day and age anyone who finds Mormon History "hidden" needs to learn to Google. Hidden History = Willful Ignorance."

So it's ok that the church ignores its history and instead we have the suggestion to go and have a look on google.

The top result for "joseph smith married other men's wives" is exmormon.org. We all ok with that as a source for a teenage mormon googling a rumour he heard?

[Danzo]

What's interesting about this thread is it starts with a question of 'does the church hide its history.'

Hiding implies an action with intent.

What you call hiding, I call not making a concerted effort to disclose everything to everyone.

The church in general (there are exceptions), in my experience tries to use positive examples, not negative examples.

I think this is the right way to approach things. Disclosing and discussing everyone's weaknesses is not uplifting, and does not bring people closer to Christ.

Confessing other peoples sins does nothing for my salvation.

Even confessing my own sins is encouraged only in the privacy of the bishops office and not, most of the time, in public.

Who is this guy named 'church' that knows all and reveals nothing?

When you say 'the church', what do you mean?, the bishop?, The stake president? the area authority seventies? the quorum of the 12? the first presidency? their secretaries? BYU? Are they all acting together (if they are, how come they can't get people to do home teaching?)

Which of these people are trained historians?

What part of the mission of the church would be addressed by this duty?

[KevinG]

I'm asking for a church published source that teaches polyandry. lds.org seems a reasonable start.

KevinG said "In this day and age anyone who finds Mormon History "hidden" needs to learn to Google. Hidden History = Willful Ignorance."

So it's ok that the church ignores its history and instead we have the suggestion to go and have a look on google.

The top result for "joseph smith married other men's wives" is exmormon.org. We all ok with that as a source for a teenage mormon googling a rumour he heard?

Where in creation and the gospel does truth require the LDS Church to publish every account (good, bad and questionable) of every whit of its history on its main website to not be accused of hiding its history. Bushman and other reputable historians were given first hand access to rare documents, the Joseph Smith papers are open to public scrutiny, our history has been told, retold and rehashed in 100s of publications.

Regarding polyandry - Sealings (not just marriages for time) were done between entire family units and not just "other men's wives" back at the time the Saints were learning about the practice. Selecting a few cherry picked examples, neglecting the rest and claiming or implying sexual relations were involved when no evidence exists is horrible history. Why should the lds church publish critiques of their practices when the critics don't understand or don't have the integrity to share the whole story?

Edited June 24, 2013 by KevinG

[canard78]

What are your disagreements with this 1980 talk?

Which numbers are you disagreeing with?

His 1980 talk repeated twice in 2010 general conference:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

and

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival?lang=eng

I struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14

I think that this type of "follow the prophet, don't go astray" rhetoric sets the church up for a fall. We all agree that they are not infallible. We all agree that there are lots of examples of prophets "speaking as a man." The problem for a lot of membership not engaged in this apologetic conversation is that they are not given that impression. So when they realise that a prophet actually will sometimes lead them astray (being imperfect he sometimes has to by nature of imperfection) it's a bit of a shock, given what they've been taught since the day they could sing and march in a circle round the nursery room singing "follow the prophet, don't go astray" or hear conference talks and Ensign articles that say the prophet will "never lead the church astray." He has, he does, he will becaues he is fallible. Why do we therefore teach that he won't?

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

“Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

“Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.

“Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

“Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

“Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

“Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

“Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

[KevinG]

"Don't follow the prophet he might make a mistake." just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Johnnie Cake]

Q: Does the LDS Church hide its history?

A: No...There is lots of available sources for Church history to those who know where to look and know what questions to ask.

Q: Does the LDS church teach its history?

A: Yes. It teaches a faithful version of its history that promotes faith in the claims of the church.

Q: Does the LDS church teach history as it actually happened?

A: No it often teaches a version of its history as it wished it had happened rather than how it actually happened.

Q: Does the church teach all of its history?

A: No...It highlights parts, emphasizes other areas and ignores some all together

Edited June 24, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[canard78]

Hiding implies an action with intent.

What you call hiding, I call not making a concerted effort to disclose everything to everyone.

The church in general (there are exceptions), in my experience tries to use positive examples, not negative examples.

I think this is the right way to approach things. Disclosing and discussing everyone's weaknesses is not uplifting, and does not bring people closer to Christ.

Confessing other peoples sins does nothing for my salvation.

Even confessing my own sins is encouraged only in the privacy of the bishops office and not, most of the time, in public.

Who is this guy named 'church' that knows all and reveals nothing?

When you say 'the church', what do you mean?, the bishop?, The stake president? the area authority seventies? the quorum of the 12? the first presidency? their secretaries? BYU? Are they all acting together (if they are, how come they can't get people to do home teaching?)

Which of these people are trained historians?

What part of the mission of the church would be addressed by this duty?

All of this is a repeat of the second argument. "They shouldn't have to."

Hide does not imply intent in its basic form. Mirriam Webster's first definition is: "to put out of sight." No intent. Just putting something in a place where it's not easily seen. Hidden.

[canard78]

Where in creation and the gospel does truth require the LDS Church to publish every account (good, bad and questionable) of every whit of its history on its main website to not be accused of hiding its history. Bushman and other reputable historians were given first hand access to rare documents, the Joseph Smith papers are open to public scrutiny, our history has been told, retold and rehashed in 100s of publications.

Regarding polyandry - Sealings (not just marriages for time) were done between entire family units and not just "other men's wives" back at the time the Saints were learning about the practice. Selecting a few cherry picked examples, neglecting the rest and claiming or implying sexual relations were involved when no evidence exists is horrible history. Why should the lds church publish critiques of their practices when the critics don't understand or don't have the integrity to share the whole story?

And you got all that from a church published source or from studying other non-church published sources?

[canard78]

"Don't follow the prophet he might make a mistake." just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Indeed.

Perhaps:

"Listen to the prophet, he's a good, often inspired, man. Prayerfully weigh up whether what he says applies to you and then do it or ignore it"

Hard to put in a primary song and not very useful for the many members who dislike ambiguity.

[Danzo]

I'm asking for a church published source that teaches polyandry. lds.org seems a reasonable start.

And there is your problem. The church does not teach polyandry. It excommunicates anyone caught doing it.

Why would you expect it to be taught on LDS.org?

Now if your question is, "why doesn't the LDS.org teach about Joseph Smiths alleged practice of it?"

For the same reason.

The church doesn't teach it.

Therefore, if Joseph smith practiced it, it is because

1. Joseph smith was wrong to practice it (we never have taught he was infallible, I am unaware of him teaching others to do it)

2. Joseph smith didn't practice it the way we think he practiced it (in the physical sense)

3. Joseph smith had a good reason to practice it (one that hasn't been revealed to us)

4. Some other reason

Since we, and I presume 'the church' doesn't know, what is the point of speculating about it?

We don't teach it

We don't allow its practice

How is it relevant to our salvation?

Perhaps a reason would be to inoculate against salacious accusations, or to spin it in the best light, but even spinning it in the best light would be a form of deception, especially when we just don't know at this time.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Danzo

[Danzo]

All of this is a repeat of the second argument. "They shouldn't have to."

Hide does not imply intent in its basic form. Mirriam Webster's first definition is: "to put out of sight." No intent. Just putting something in a place where it's not easily seen. Hidden.

it is still a verb that implies an action.

The term I think you are looking for is "does not teach" instead of "Hide"

[Danzo]

His 1980 talk repeated twice in 2010 general conference:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

and

https://www.lds.org/...rvival?lang=eng

I struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14

I think that this type of "follow the prophet, don't go astray" rhetoric sets the church up for a fall. We all agree that they are not infallible. We all agree that there are lots of examples of prophets "speaking as a man." The problem for a lot of membership not engaged in this apologetic conversation is that they are not given that impression. So when they realise that a prophet actually will sometimes lead them astray (being imperfect he sometimes has to by nature of imperfection) it's a bit of a shock, given what they've been taught since the day they could sing and march in a circle round the nursery room singing "follow the prophet, don't go astray" or hear conference talks and Ensign articles that say the prophet will "never lead the church astray." He has, he does, he will becaues he is fallible. Why do we therefore teach that he won't?

Perhaps you can share your feelings of why dead prophets are more important than living ones (number 3)

Or you can share your feelings of why it is important that the prophet get credentials before giving revelation (number 5)

When has the church been led astray by a living prophet? (number 4)

Which other person speaks for the lord in everything (number 1)

Can you see why modern revelation can be more important than past revelation? (number 2)

At least, in my personal experience, I have been blessed when I have followed the prophet (number 14)

I can understand why someone who doesn't believe in the church, revelation, priesthood, etc, would have a problem with the talk, I just don't see the talk conflicting my understanding of the church.

(When I say follow the prophet, I mean when he is acting as one, which, to me seems pretty obvious)