Dismayed

[Palerider]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

Edited May 11, 2014 by Palerider

[bluebell]

Did you say the topic was record keeping?

[Palerider]

So weak.......

 

Mr. Sideways:

"Let me tell you about my Mustang I'm selling. It's a wonderful car. Performs beautifully. Great paint, not a scratch on it. Excellent tires...."

 

Mr. Straight:

"O.k. let's pop the hood.........Hey! that's a Volkswagon engine! I thought you said it performs beautifully?"

 

Mr. Sideways:

"It does perform beautifully for a Volkswagon engine...."

 

Mr. Straight:

"Why didn't you tell me about the engine?"

 

Mr. Sideways:

"Cause we were just talking about the car.................."

Edited May 11, 2014 by Palerider

[jwhitlock]

So, a BYU channel is the sole outlet from the church for all history.

 

I guess, by your rather narrow standards, we can exclude the Joseph Smith papers that have been made available, and what the church history department has made available. Both are rather extensive.

 

And for your purposes in slamming the church about being "open" with history, those don't count.

 

Kind of ironic, you not being particularly open about letting us know that there are other sources for church history besides the BYU channel.

[canard78]

Did they mention that Horrace was so sweet on Helen that he stood as Joseph's proxy while she was sealed to him for eternity before she returned the favour of sealing him to a dead woman he might have never even met?

Did they talk about how great a father he was to his children that wouldn't be his in the eternies given they were born under Joseph's sealing to Helen?

I suppose that makes him their step dad.

[Palerider]

Wow Canard 78.

 

I hadn't heard that....

 

I'll bet Horrace shed a tear at that wedding but probably not a tear of joy.....

[Palerider]

Jwhitlock:

 

I think that's what they used to call talking out of both sides of your mouth. Say one thing to one audience and another thing to a different audience.

 

I would say that the BYU televised version of "church history" is the more readily consumable to todays audience. From what was presented today the question of Helen's status would never have come up in the viewers mind. One would be left to assume that she and Horrace were first time partners and that she had never been previously married to Joseph Smith no less.  There are sins of omission you know........... 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Palerider

[Pahoran]

On the subject of honesty: Why did you title your thread "Dismayed," when you are obviously revelling in the opportunity to accuse the Church?

Wouldn't "Delighted" be a far more honest title?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

If the Church was hiding the information then obviously you wouldn't know about it

[bluebell]

So weak.......

 

Mr. Sideways:

"Let me tell you about my Mustang I'm selling. It's a wonderful car. Performs beautifully. Great paint, not a scratch on it. Excellent tires...."

 

Mr. Straight:

"O.k. let's pop the hood.........Hey! that's a Volkswagon engine! I thought you said it performs beautifully?"

 

Mr. Sideways:

"It does perform beautifully for a Volkswagon engine...."

 

Mr. Straight:

"Why didn't you tell me about the engine?"

 

Mr. Sideways:

"Cause we were just talking about the car.................."

 

I don't think this analogy is as strongly in support of your case as you believe it to be.

 

The engine of the car is a subset of the topic of 'the car'.  It's a major subset actually. 

 

I'm not seeing how 'plural marriage' is a subset of 'record keeping'.  Can you explain the connection that you believe exists which makes polygamy essentially relevant to record keeping, to the point that not including it equates dishonesty?

 

Because i'm sincerely not seeing it.

[canard78]

Wow Canard 78.

I hadn't heard that....

I'll bet Horrace shed a tear at that wedding but probably not a tear of joy.....

From our friends at Wikipedia:

With the death of Smith in 1844, and by age sixteen, Kimball had formed a relationship with twenty-two-year-old Horace Whitney. After a period of courtship, the two decided to be “married for time” on February 3, 1846 (Compton 1997, pp. 503–504). Shortly before the exodus from Nauvoo, in the Nauvoo Temple, Kimball was married to Whitney for time and again sealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. (deceased) for eternity, with her husband Whitney standing in as proxy for Smith. The following day, Whitney was sealed to Elizabeth Sykes (deceased) for eternity, with Kimball standing in as proxy for Sykes (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480;Compton 1997, p. 486).

Kimball bore eleven children with Horace Whitney (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480). Her son Orson F. Whitney became an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A friend left the church over polyandry (including Helen) 9 years ago, long before I'd gone down the rabbit hole.

As I begged him to give Mormonism a second chance he said something to the effect of:

"If God commanded it, then that's a God I'm not willing to worship...

"If God didn't command that, then Joseph's a man I have no desire to be associated with."

While I don't share his conclusions, I can understand the pain of them.

BYU are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Teach the history in full accuracy to the majority and expose people to the confusion it causes or teach the whitewashed version to the majority and let the interested minority deal with the issues in quiet private.

The church loves its stories of loyalty and sacrifice from the early saints. Perhaps Horrace's should be added. I won't hold my breath.

[The Nehor]

Now we imagine the church is responsible for BYU television documentaries?

[Stargazer]

My wife had a dream once, and I don't know if it was predictive or not, but in her dream I would have another wife, whom neither of us had met in life.  

 

If this ended up to be the case, I don't think I would be dismayed.  Any more than apparently Helen or Horace reportedly were.

[canard78]

My wife had a dream once, and I don't know if it was predictive or not, but in her dream I would have another wife, whom neither of us had met in life.

If this ended up to be the case, I don't think I would be dismayed. Any more than apparently Helen or Horace reportedly were.

Ignore me if this is too personal a question, but how would you react if President Monson told you that you that your wife was going to be sealed to a former deceased prophet (along with your biological children) and you instead would be sealed for the eternities to someone else who had previously died and you had never met? Would you be dismayed or say yes willingly without a second's thought.

[canard78]

Any more than apparently Helen or Horace reportedly were.

While we're at it, could you show me your source for being able to read the mind, emotions and inner-thoughts of both people?

[Sleeper Cell]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

If the Church (and/or BYU  TV) was trying to cover up Helen Marr Kimball’s “relationship” with Joseph Smith, why was she mentioned at all, let alone dwelling on her “classic live story” and marriage to her “childhood sweetheart,” Horace K. Whitney?  After all, there were many  other “informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers” whose stories that could have been used as examples.  It is doubtful that Horace K. Whitney was the only one of them who married his childhood sweetheart and wrote about his “classic love story.”  

Edited May 12, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[mormonnewb]

Now we imagine the church is responsible for BYU television documentaries?

YES! Who else is responsible for documentaries being televised by the Lord's University -- Tyler Perry?

[DBMormon]

Let's be frank.  There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism.  80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

 

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.  Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

 

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory.  We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky.  Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well  it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

 

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th?  incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

 

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

 

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience 

[Stargazer]

"If God commanded it, then that's a God I'm not willing to worship...

"If God didn't command that, then Joseph's a man I have no desire to be associated with."

This is so head-shakingly bizarre.  "a God I'm not willing to worship"?  What?  There's another one?  We have a choice? 

[Stargazer]

While we're at it, could you show me your source for being able to read the mind, emotions and inner-thoughts of both people?

 

I have a hat.  Through it I can detect these things.

 

You're right, I am mind-reading.  But has anyone found any source to the contrary?  That they were emotionally devastated about it all?

 

This kind of thing happens even nowadays.  I know a man who was married for time-only to a widow who had been sealed to her first husband.  They had children together, and these children, by the terms of the sealing ordinance, belong to the first husband, not the second.  He seemed to be content with this, trusting that God would make all things the way they were supposed to be.

 

This actually corresponds very neatly with the ancient practice of Levirate marriage.  This is where a woman whose first husband had not given her a child would be married to a close relative of her husband, and the resulting child would be the heir of the first husband, not the second.

[Duncan]

Let's be frank.  There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism.  80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

 

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.  Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

 

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory.  We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky.  Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well  it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

 

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th?  incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

 

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

 

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience 

 

 

maybe at Church but here or other similar sites and a billion blogs and whatnot

[Palerider]

My point here is that the portrayal of Horrace and Helen's childhood, romance and marriage is just plain inaccurate.

 

More than over-simplified, it is a bent perspective, engineered not to have to deal with a difficult subject that might disturb the "faith promoting" story line to which the church sacrifices it's integrity. 

 

If someone wants to say that the church doesn't "hide" it's history that's fine. But just remember you only win the argument when you have convinced the heart of the person who is searching. And I see red flags all over this issue in general. I come here and I "hear" one thing. I see what is actually presented by the church and I "see" and "feel" something very different. 

[Tacenda]

Let's be frank. There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism. 80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed. Too risky to tell them the whole truth. We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory. We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky. Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th? incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience

It's insane that's what it is, insane. A behaviour that will only come back to bite, they aren't doing enough. People can handle most bad behaviour if it's acknowledged and corrected, but they don't handle being intentionally mislead or keeping truth from them, very well. In fact it is against God's commandments.

[The Nehor]

YES! Who else is responsible for documentaries being televised by the Lord's University -- Tyler Perry?

The people at BYU who make the programming decisions would be my guess.

I guess I could be wrong. I am sure everything they met is vetted in First Presidency meetings weekly. Yeah.....that makes sense.

[mormonnewb]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general. As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful?

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

Hopefully, this doesn't become the straw that breaks the tapir's back for you, Brother. I see this portrayal of the Whitney story much like my Aunt Helen's portrayals of her courtship with Uncle Charlie.

According to her, their courtship involved chivalry, sword fights and even a fire-breathing dragon (and I'm only exaggerating SLIGHTLY). The truth is quite a bit less fantastical or "pure," as it turns out that the "patient lovers" were married just six MONTHS before their first child was born.

I'd be willing to bet that she told this story at the last family outing despite the fact that most adults in the family know the truth. I'd also be willing to bet that no one got mad and stormed out of her kitchen, muttering, "That damn Helen can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything."

This is one of the sweetest ladies that you'd ever want to meet and not someone from whom you would hide your valuables if she came to visit. She's just a sweet old lady who likes to tell one story in a funny little way.

That's the way that I see the Church in this instance. It's a sweet little old church that likes to tell a few of its stories in a funny little way. It isn't using this story as proof of the truth of the atonement or the restoration, so you might just want to let it go ... for the sake of Aunt Helen.