What Is Hidden History?

[Madmardigan]

I haven't read through all of this thread so I don't know if someone has brought this up. But in my own experience with finding things out I didn't know before I blame myself. I keep hearing from people who have left the church or who are thinking they may leave that the church never taught them this. My question is, how often did you pay attention? I grew up in the church, went to seminary, went on a mission, etc. and have learned a lot of these historical "difficulties" in the last few years. However, when I look back on my younger days, I went to church but I slept most of the time or daydreamed. I went to seminary but all that I can remember are the little piles of drool I left on my desk. I never read the Ensign (still don't). So who's fault is it that I learned these things in my late 20's (I'm 32 now).

I teach the 10 and 11 year old boys at church and have been for the last month or so. I have already taught them about the seer stone stuff for the translation and the destruction of the printing press in showing that Joseph wasn't perfect. I am 100% sure that 15 years from now, at least one of them will hear it again and say, "What!?!, nobody told me that!"

Should every class in church, seminary, etc. bring it up every week just in case someone wasn't listening the week before? This is ludicrous. Every one of these "difficulties" has been taught at some point in time or mentioned. And frankly, I would stop going to church if all we ever talked about was this stuff. because that is all we would do if it was brought up in a class. I would rather talk about the gospel.

[ERayR]

You're alright Wiki!!! Thanks for not calling my inquiry pathetic too. I will go to the link above!

After being answered how many times do you circle back to the same issues, with the same questions?

[ERayR]

I haven't read through all of this thread so I don't know if someone has brought this up. But in my own experience with finding things out I didn't know before I blame myself. I keep hearing from people who have left the church or who are thinking they may leave that the church never taught them this. My question is, how often did you pay attention? I grew up in the church, went to seminary, went on a mission, etc. and have learned a lot of these historical "difficulties" in the last few years. However, when I look back on my younger days, I went to church but I slept most of the time or daydreamed. I went to seminary but all that I can remember are the little piles of drool I left on my desk. I never read the Ensign (still don't). So who's fault is it that I learned these things in my late 20's (I'm 32 now).

I teach the 10 and 11 year old boys at church and have been for the last month or so. I have already taught them about the seer stone stuff for the translation and the destruction of the printing press in showing that Joseph wasn't perfect. I am 100% sure that 15 years from now, at least one of them will hear it again and say, "What!?!, nobody told me that!"

Should every class in church, seminary, etc. bring it up every week just in case someone wasn't listening the week before? This is ludicrous. Every one of these "difficulties" has been taught at some point in time or mentioned. And frankly, I would stop going to church if all we ever talked about was this stuff. because that is all we would do if it was brought up in a class. I would rather talk about the gospel.

And as far as the gospel is concerned it is irrelevant. Straining at Gnats.

[bcuzbcuz]

And as far as the gospel is concerned it is irrelevant. Straining at Gnats.

Your message is at least consistant. We get the idea that you think history is irrelevant. But while you strain gnats, you seem to swallow camels. Not everyone sees church history in the same blacks and whites.

Joseph said he was going as a lamb to slaughter.....but he carried a loaded gun. You seem ok with that, but I am not. You have basically said the same thing about polygamy and polyandry. My wife said she would leave me if I took another wife. She made me promise I wouldn't even re- marry, should she die. I kind of get the idea that Emma was the same kind of personality as my late wife. Believe me, I gave it considerable thought (and 15 years) before I re-married...(and not in the temple). Some of my kids had trouble with that I re-married at all. Maybe your wife is more understanding with your "drives" and would accept a second or third wife, but it is not so with everyone. (And my first wife never bought in to the idea that polygamy was "offically"gone. She knew that a second sealed wife was someone she would meet up with in the next life).

You have repeated your message often. We get it. And I use the term "We" in a regal sense, covering both myself and all my subjects!

[ERayR]

Your message is at least consistant. We get the idea that you think history is irrelevant. But while you strain gnats, you seem to swallow camels. Not everyone sees church history in the same blacks and whites.

Joseph said he was going as a lamb to slaughter.....but he carried a loaded gun. You seem ok with that, but I am not. You have basically said the same thing about polygamy and polyandry. My wife said she would leave me if I took another wife. She made me promise I wouldn't even re- marry, should she die. I kind of get the idea that Emma was the same kind of personality as my late wife. Believe me, I gave it considerable thought (and 15 years) before I re-married...(and not in the temple). Some of my kids had trouble with that I re-married at all. Maybe your wife is more understanding with your "drives" and would accept a second or third wife, but it is not so with everyone. (And my first wife never bought in to the idea that polygamy was "offically"gone. She knew that a second sealed wife was someone she would meet up with in the next life).

You have repeated your message often. We get it. And I use the term "We" in a regal sense, covering both myself and all my subjects!

To reiterate, The most important factor is the personal revelation about the Book of Mormon and the restoration. If you have that all else falls into irrelevancy.

PS: Before making wild guesses about my "DRIVES" you probably ought to check my medical history. OOPS wrong again. At least you are consistent.

[sheilauk]

Joseph said he was going as a lamb to slaughter.....but he carried a loaded gun. You seem ok with that, but I am not.

I thought that the gun was brought into the jail by a supporter shortly before the attack? I also imagine that giving up one's own life is a lot easier than standing by while your family and friends are attacked and killed. Joseph may have expected to be killed himself - but perhaps he didn't expect an armed and large group to attack the jail - while people were in there who were, in effect, visiting - and harm the others with him, without any sign of protection from the lawful authorities!

[Garden Girl]

I thought that the gun was brought into the jail by a supporter shortly before the attack? I also imagine that giving up one's own life is a lot easier than standing by while your family and friends are attacked and killed. Joseph may have expected to be killed himself - but perhaps he didn't expect an armed and large group to attack the jail - while people were in there who were, in effect, visiting - and harm the others with him, without any sign of protection from the lawful authorities!

I do believe that's the way it happened... Joseph didn't carry the gun with him... it was a small caliber, what some here have described as a pea shooter(?). Anyway, it afforded little protection against the mob's weapons... and the fact that Joseph attempted to defend the group doesn't bother me at all...

GG

[Tacenda]

Whoever's listening, I give credit to JS for fighting back, he was trying to protect the men with him and then realized he needed to just jump out the window in order to do that, it all makes sense. See, when the full picture is told? I didn't run. This is how the history of the church should be taught in class while young. Sure in GD they say he shot back but not in any youth class I 've been in, nor have I heard it in GD, to busy in primary callings.

[Deborah]

I haven't read through all of this thread so I don't know if someone has brought this up. But in my own experience with finding things out I didn't know before I blame myself.

I so agree with this. I was never interested in history when I was young so I doubt I ever paid attention to anything but which cute boy was sitting next to me in seminary. Although as a young convert I had Fawn Brodie's book and the priesthood issue thrown in my face almost immediately to try to dissuade me. Fortunately my testimony was already based on some very powerful prior experiences so I was able to put those in the background. But I do recognize that I didn't pay much attention to anything historical until, well very recently, even though I read about some of these things years ago. They just didn't have an impact on me until I started to see them thrown against the church as epithets. Then I really started studying and finding out the truth, not just what the epithets were expressing.

Truth is more than just sound bites and out of context pieces of information. It is the culmination of all things into a big picture. If people would keep this in mind whenever they hear something it makes it so much easier to keep things in perspective.

[Danzo]

Joseph said he was going as a lamb to slaughter.....but he carried a loaded gun. You seem ok with that, but I am not.

Why do you have a problem with this?

[Wiki Wonka]

You're alright Wiki!!! Thanks for not calling my inquiry pathetic too. I will go to the link above!

I have to apologize, but I just realized that some of those links from the Wiki to the Church website have gone bad - I'll work on finding the correct links. The references are still correct - the Church changed all of its link names to something easier, and I just have to find the new links.

[Wiki Wonka]

You're alright Wiki!!! Thanks for not calling my inquiry pathetic too. I will go to the link above!

I just realized that some of the links were stale (the Church changed the way it names links). Here are a couple that I just fixed:

1994

• Reed Blake, "Martyrdom at Carthage," Ensign (June 1994), 30. off-site
  
• The same information was contained in a “First Presidency Message” in the same Ensign issue (anniversary of Joseph's assassination). Thomas S. Monson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith: Teacher by Example,” Ensign, Jun 1994
  

There was to be one great final lesson before his mortal life ended. He was incarcerated in Carthage Jail with his brother Hyrum, with John Taylor, and with Willard Richards. The angry mob stormed the jail; they came up the stairway, blasphemous in their cursing, heavily armed, and began to fire at will. Hyrum was hit and died. John Taylor took several balls of fire within his bosom. The Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren, and yet he could tell from the pounding on the door that this mob would storm that door and would kill John Taylor and Willard Richards in an attempt to kill him. And so his last great act here upon the earth was to leave the door and lead Willard Richards to safety, throw the gun on the floor, and go to the window, that they might see him, that the attention of this ruthless mob might be focused upon him rather than the others. Joseph Smith gave his life. Willard Richards was spared, and John Taylor recovered from his wounds. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The Prophet Joseph Smith taught us love—by example.

2005

• Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual for 2005: “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History” lesson 32, page 184: the following account of the martyrdom by Elder Willard Richards:
  

“As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. . A ball [from the musket of one of the mob] grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him and some balls hit him. Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before, while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway.... When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.” off-site

[Tacenda]

I just realized that some of the links were stale (the Church changed the way it names links). Here are a couple that I just fixed:

1994

• Reed Blake, "Martyrdom at Carthage," Ensign (June 1994), 30. off-site
  
• The same information was contained in a “First Presidency Message” in the same Ensign issue (anniversary of Joseph's assassination). Thomas S. Monson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith: Teacher by Example,” Ensign, Jun 1994
  

There was to be one great final lesson before his mortal life ended. He was incarcerated in Carthage Jail with his brother Hyrum, with John Taylor, and with Willard Richards. The angry mob stormed the jail; they came up the stairway, blasphemous in their cursing, heavily armed, and began to fire at will. Hyrum was hit and died. John Taylor took several balls of fire within his bosom. The Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren, and yet he could tell from the pounding on the door that this mob would storm that door and would kill John Taylor and Willard Richards in an attempt to kill him. And so his last great act here upon the earth was to leave the door and lead Willard Richards to safety, throw the gun on the floor, and go to the window, that they might see him, that the attention of this ruthless mob might be focused upon him rather than the others. Joseph Smith gave his life. Willard Richards was spared, and John Taylor recovered from his wounds. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The Prophet Joseph Smith taught us love—by example.

2005

• Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual for 2005: “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History” lesson 32, page 184: the following account of the martyrdom by Elder Willard Richards:
  

“As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. . A ball [from the musket of one of the mob] grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him and some balls hit him. Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before, while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway.... When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.” off-site

Yep, I noticed it, thanks. ETA: Just finished reading through the links here! Wow, more detail, than I've ever seen before. My lack of search in this matter has surely surfaced.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

Why do you have a problem with this?

The part about "thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Danzo]

The part about "thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Ok, I see, some people have a problem with killing even in self defense.

[Deborah]

From Wiki:

You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah, specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

[canard78]

The part about "thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Risk of a thread derail here... but men are attacking you and your friends/family with a gun. You also have a gun. Do you:

1) Act like an Ammonite and take the bullets and die?

2) Act like anyone other than an Ammonite and shoot back in self-defense?

I agree that the whole 'martyrdom' story is often over-simplified in the correlated manuals (even the reason he ended up in jail). But is his behaviour of defending himself inexcusable? I don't think so.

Unless you're a committed pacifist (which you may be), I don't think it's fair to pull the 'thou shalt not kill' card.

Have you ever been to a slaughter house? It's grim. Most lambs go to slaughter kicking and screaming. They don't welcome it passively.

Joseph did go like a lamb to the slaughter inasmuch as a lamb is vastly outnumbered and has absolutely no chance to escape his impending butchering. I think we often forget what meat goes through to be slaughtered. We do such a good job of taking the animal out of the meat in the supermarkets that often it's little more than 'pink tasty protein.'

[Tacenda]

( I tried to find this on LDS.org, but I couldn't find it under JST of the Bible. Is this being hidden or can someone point to where it is noted on the church website? )

The King James Bible it reads:

Luke 10:22

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

In the Joseph Smith translation it is translated as:

Luke 10:23, Inspired Version (emphasis added)

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

[sdc999]

People will stay in the church no matter what evidence is presented in the same manor a battered woman will stay with a husband. They refuse to look at the situation from an outside perspective. A person will leave the church based on what they believe to be great mounds of evidence no matter how trivial it may be if they were not interested in staying in the first place. One of the problems I have seen is when a person shows interest in the church and ASKS pointed question and makes a decision based on TRUST of the answers received (i.e. missionary, Bishop, Brother-in-law), and then, years later, BAM, those answers were WRONG. That does sting quite a bit to someone who based a life decision on non factual answers and in prayer. Now, I do believe there has been hidden history but more important to me was the allowance of Folklore to go on, uninterrupted from generation to generation. And where did these folks, who I still stay in contact with today and consider friends, get their information? Folklore has gone on in the church for so long that it's quite easy for someone to not know the REAL history and upon discovering it, great animosity is created.

[Calm]

( I tried to find this on LDS.org, but I couldn't find it under JST of the Bible. Is this being hidden or can someone point to where it is noted on the church website? )

The King James Bible it reads:

Luke 10:22

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

In the Joseph Smith translation it is translated as:

Luke 10:23, Inspired Version (emphasis added)

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

If you click on the footnote 'b', it will show the JST version: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/10.25-37?lang=eng

JST Luke 10:23 … that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

Edited July 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

People will stay in the church no matter what evidence is presented in the same manor a battered woman will stay with a husband.

So if I choose to remain in the church no matter what evidence I am presented, I have the same mentality as a battered woman who chooses to stay with her husband?

Or maybe the correlation is ridiculous and I stay in the church because upon examining the evidence and the context of that evidence as well as in view of the big picture I find the "evidence" faulty or biased or unproven or not fitting with other things I do know about the church. Therefore I'm willing to wait to see what the truth is. A piece of "evidence" in and of itself is not proof of anything. It must be taken into account with other evidence and with motives, purposes and context.

[Tacenda]

If you click on the footnote 'b', it will show the JST version: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/10.25-37?lang=eng

What do you think about it? Isn't it clear Joseph believed Jesus was God in physical form? And don't tell me Jesus is the God of our world. I've read and heard it's Satan. Edited July 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

What do you think about it? Isn't it clear Joseph believed Jesus was God in physical form? And don't tell me Jesus is the God of our world. I've read and heard it's Satan.

No. Joseph very clearly described the relationship of God and Jesus. It is called the first vision.

Edited July 6, 2013 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

No. Joseph very clearly described the relationship of God and Jesus. It is called the first vision.

Then why did he transate the bible to mean that?

[ERayR]

Then why did he transate the bible to mean that?

That is your way of translating what you are reading. Word can be tricky sometimes especially when we don't all understand them to have the same identical meaning. We all bring our own misconceptions to our understanding.