Dismayed

[Ahab]

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.

Do you know the exact wording used in the sealing ceremonies back then for each type of sealing?

[jwhitlock]

I see that Palerider is avoiding addressing his own deception in portraying the BYU channel as the official arm of the church for portraying church history.

 

The reality is that his OP is based on a false premise. The church itself is very open with its history, which is very clear to anyone who will look honestly at the situation.

 

If enemies of the church need to ignore the church history department and other BYU venues that are publishing huge amounts of original documents in order to make such accusations, it's pretty clear that they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

When those mocking the church and its members on this thread are ready to have an honest discussion about the issues, then that discussion can occur. Otherwise, what I'm seeing on this thread by them doesn't warrant serious consideration.

[thesometimesaint]

This thread ranks up there with "Tell me everything you know. I have a minute, and if you don't you're being dishonest" SHEESH

[Senator]

If this site's intent is to bring people back to the fold I would say that in general it is a miserable failure.

 

This has never been this site's intent.

[Danzo]

Why would one think that neglecting to mention a fact means that fact is deliberately hidden. Especially since that fact is published in numerous places by the church.

 

Palerider's argument would mean that everything omitted by the documentary was deliberately hidden.  He would have the documentary go on for days or years lest a fact that might be important to someone be omitted.  

[stemelbow]

Assume what you will, but the Doctrine bothers me not at all, I have very little if any issue with the Doctrines of the Church.  I am in a place where Church history - Seer Srones, Book of Abraham, Polyandry do not bother me.

 

What I can't stand is the culture of nonsense.  While I understand and grasp that the Church has no official stance on Evolution, whether tithing is gross, white shirts and ties for all, age of the earth, the date of Christ's birth... etc...   I am bombarded every Sunday by a group of older members who tell me my stances that such are not Doctrines are apostate, out of line, not following prophets etc...  -  In my ward maybe 1-2 others grasp the nuance and flexibility, 60 % simply don't know enough to decisively take a stance on most issues and don't even think about them or care to seek out answers and delve into Church history (more power to them though I wish we were all more active in seeking), and the rest have been taught a mormonism that simply doesn't hold up to reality, but they have been been taught it so long, and had it re-enforced at all levels, and have had others around them to hold them up in their nonsense that they know and enforce the status-quo rather than even allow for the possibility they are wrong.  In doing so they create an evironment where either I simply suffer through the bullcrap allowing false doctrine to be taught every week or I speak up and have the "older" "wiser" members get frustrated with me because I am letting the room know this old viewpoint is not the only way to see the gospel.

I see much the same.

Back to responsibility. If the Church would not stand for anything but forthright, well-researched videos by its various arms, then perhaps this failed effort of historical story telling wouldn't have happened. It gets us nowhere if we fail to hold the Church responsible for it's various groups of information providers. We've got to start learning to take responsibility. If my kid throws a rock through the windows car, maliciously, unjustifiably, I should learn to take responsibility that my kid did that. I have to learn to teach him better.

[Danzo]

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

Mind reader

[rockpond]

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.

 

I think the question here is this:  Why would BYU, in a documentary about record keeping, feel the need to tell the Horrace Whitney & Helen Kimball story without actually including the important details of their marriages?  Are we embarrassed of that part of their story?  Or do we now feel that a sealing to the prophet was so insignificant that it doesn't matter?  

[The Nehor]

I think the question here is this:  Why would BYU, in a documentary about record keeping, feel the need to tell the Horrace Whitney & Helen Kimball story without actually including the important details of their marriages?  Are we embarrassed of that part of their story?  Or do we now feel that a sealing to the prophet was so insignificant that it doesn't matter?

Who is the "we" in this context?

[Danzo]

I think the question here is this:  Why would BYU, in a documentary about record keeping, feel the need to tell the Horrace Whitney & Helen Kimball story without actually including the important details of their marriages?  Are we embarrassed of that part of their story?  Or do we now feel that a sealing to the prophet was so insignificant that it doesn't matter?  

 

How much did it matter in their daily lives? Do we have evidence it was a major part of their relationship (Horrace's and Helen's)?

Edited May 12, 2014 by Danzo

[Danzo]

I think the question here is this:  Why would BYU, in a documentary about record keeping, feel the need to tell the Horrace Whitney & Helen Kimball story without actually including the important details of their marriages?  Are we embarrassed of that part of their story?  Or do we now feel that a sealing to the prophet was so insignificant that it doesn't matter?  

 

One more thing why do people have to pretend BYU is a person who would feel the need to do anything.  BYU is an organization which various members feel the need to do various and different things.  Contrary to what some would have us think, BYU is not yet the Borg.

[jwhitlock]

I think the question here is this:  Why would BYU, in a documentary about record keeping, feel the need to tell the Horrace Whitney & Helen Kimball story without actually including the important details of their marriages?  Are we embarrassed of that part of their story?  Or do we now feel that a sealing to the prophet was so insignificant that it doesn't matter?  

 

How does this relate to Palerider's claim that the church hides its history?

[Glenn101]

The point is the Church speaks highly of wanting truth seekers - that is supposed to be the group that joins the church as kingdom builders... yet in reality truth seeking in the church is only welcome up to the point at which you understand the surface of issues.... not their depth

 

It all depends on the source of one's "truth".(I.E., man, Church History, or God)

"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5)

 

And then, whether one is ready for the truth.

"Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth." (D&C 50:40)

 

And in Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 we are taught :

"22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish."

 

I think sometimes that we are "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel" when agonizing over church history. As Brother Dave Bitton said in an essay once, "Ido not have a testimony of Church history. My testimony came via revelation from the Holy Ghost, the source of my truth.

 

From that revelation came the knowledge that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet called by God. Whatever the so called "warts" of church history, it is not my place to judge Joseph or the purveyors of church history. I don't have all of the facts in the case.

 

I have enough to do just in working out my own salvation. However in Doctrine and Covenants Section 19, the Lord continues to guide us:

"23 Learn of me, and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my Spirit, and you shall have peace in me."

 

Of course there will be those who say that my solution is simplistic and does not take into account this fact or that factor. But it is not my solution. It is God's solution.

 

Glenn

 

 

[jwhitlock]

The point is the Church speaks highly of wanting truth seekers - that is supposed to be the group that joins the church as kingdom builders... yet in reality truth seeking in the church is only welcome up to the point at which you understand the surface of issues.... not their depth

 

Hogwash. This is the kind of unsupported generalization that not only masks but poisons an understanding of what the real issue is.

 

When you're ready to talk about the issues as they relate to the actions of some individuals within the church rather than saying (as you do above) that it is the way everything in the church is, that will be an indication that you're gaining a balanced perspective on all of this.

 

This is just ridiculous. 

[mormonnewb]

I see that Palerider is avoiding addressing his own deception in portraying the BYU channel as the official arm of the church for portraying church history.

 

The reality is that his OP is based on a false premise. The church itself is very open with its history, which is very clear to anyone who will look honestly at the situation.

 

If enemies of the church need to ignore the church history department and other BYU venues that are publishing huge amounts of original documents in order to make such accusations, it's pretty clear that they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

When those mocking the church and its members on this thread are ready to have an honest discussion about the issues, then that discussion can occur. Otherwise, what I'm seeing on this thread by them doesn't warrant serious consideration.

For now, I will ignore your obsession with the crime next to murder -- mocking. I certainly don't in any way want to mock would could be seen as hypersensitivity on your part.

However, your assertion that the Church is being truthful because it publishes truth SOMEWHERE is simply ridiculous. You can't just sprinkle the truth in bits and pieces all over the Internet and then claim that you are being "upfront" about things. By way of analogy, I certainly can't report only some of my income on my Form 1040 and then explain to the IRS that I was being truthful because I mentioned my other income on an obscure website somewhere. Yet, in this case, you want to claim that the Church is being truthful because SOMEWHERE in the Joseph Smith Papers, the entire truth of the matter is told. Neither the IRS nor I am buying that.

Once again, this isn't a make or break issue for me. It's just one of those things we do in MY Church. We like to focus on the positive. I think we even have an article of faith about it. And I think it's a great thing. But it should be possible to accentuate the positive without completing denying that the negative exists.

Now, back to the mocking, your attempt to classify others as "enemies of the church" is laughable and mocks all of our intelligence. Who are these "enemies" of whom you speak and how are they fighting the Church? Are they bombing our temples or kidnapping our precious daughters? Or are you referring to the two dozen misfits who protest outside of GC each year? Or are you referring to those who suggest that not EVERYTHING the Church does is in alignment with its values? If you're talking about the latter group, then you have to add Pres Uchtdorf to the "enemies" list (see his October 2013 conference talk -- Come Join With Us).

One can be a faithful member of the Church and still not agree with everything it does. In fact, I don't see how one can be a faithful member and not want the Church to better.

[rockpond]

How does this relate to Palerider's claim that the church hides its history?

 

It doesn't... that's why I was saying that the relevant question (for me) was not the same question as Palerider.

 

For me, I don't see this documentary as a strong example of the church hiding its history.  Though I believe there are clear examples out there of the church not being entirely forthcoming (the Brigham Young manual for RS/PH, for example).  That would then lead us to a discussion about whether not being forthcoming about certain aspects of the prophet's life & teachings was appropriate and/or productive.

[bluebell]

I'm sorry you only see "winning the argument" in such narrow terms. Heavenly father argues or as the scriptures put it "pleads" his case to mankind in the hopes of winning our souls to Him.

 

Anyone can craftily argue a case (as your own scriptures seem to support, remember those crafty lawyers in the BOM?) and APPEAR to win but the real test is, have they won the heart and conscience of the individual? Is there truly reconciliation, seeing eye to eye and spiritual growth, both between individuals and with God.

 

Nothing I have seen here on this site persuades me that my conclusions regarding the church have been misguided and very little tells me that there is much if any understanding for those who doubt.

 

 

I haven't actually defined how i see 'winning the argument'.  I've only discussed it within the terms that you have outlined.

 

And what i'm saying is that whether or not an argument can persuade someone else to its truthfulness isn't a great indication of either the strength of the argument or it's accuracy (which can actually be two different things).

 

Jesus wasn't able to persuade a lot of people of the truthfulness of His message, but I think you will agree that that means nothing in regards to the actual merits of His message.  Satan is able to persuade many people of the merits of his arguments, and again, that really doesn't mean anything either.

 

This is why i'm saying that how you have defined 'winning an argument' isn't very logical or sound.

 

Instead, many are put up for ridicule and disdain and their motives are questioned, judged, and then are discarded. What I really see here is a huge effort at "turf protection" and a lot of self ego stroking. 

 

 

I'm really not surprised that you see things this way.  I would guess that there are many here who would say the same exact things about your posts.  This is a great example of what I'm saying and how bias and assumptions color the way that we interpret things, without the merits of what a person is actually saying having anything to do with it.

 

If this site's intent is to bring people back to the fold I would say that in general it is a miserable failure.

 

 

That isn't the intent of this site, so i guess that makes it a success.  

[Duncan]

Hopefully the OP will read this

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one

 

talks about Helen Kimball's experience with polygamy and Heavens to Murgatroyd it's from a BYU site, in fact it's a book published by BYU

 

badda bing badda boom

Edited May 12, 2014 by Duncan

[jwhitlock]

For now, I will ignore your obsession with the crime next to murder -- mocking. I certainly don't in any way want to mock would could be seen as hypersensitivity on your part.

However, your assertion that the Church is being truthful because it publishes truth SOMEWHERE is simply ridiculous. You can't just sprinkle the truth in bits and pieces all over the Internet and then claim that you are being "upfront" about things. By way of analogy, I certainly can't report only some of my income on my Form 1040 and then explain to the IRS that I was being truthful because I mentioned my other income on an obscure website somewhere. Yet, in this case, you want to claim that the Church is being truthful because SOMEWHERE in the Joseph Smith Papers, the entire truth of the matter is told. Neither the IRS nor I am buying that.

Once again, this isn't a make or break issue for me. It's just one of those things we do in MY Church. We like to focus on the positive. I think we even have an article of faith about it. And I think it's a great thing. But it should be possible to accentuate the positive without completing denying that the negative exists.

Now, back to the mocking, your attempt to classify others as "enemies of the church" is laughable and mocks all of our intelligence. Who are these "enemies" of whom you speak and how are they fighting the Church? Are they bombing our temples or kidnapping our precious daughters? Or are you referring to the two dozen misfits who protest outside of GC each year? Or are you referring to those who suggest that not EVERYTHING the Church does is in alignment with its values? If you're talking about the latter group, then you have to add Pres Uchtdorf to the "enemies" list (see his October 2013 conference talk -- Come Join With Us).

One can be a faithful member of the Church and still not agree with everything it does. In fact, I don't see how one can be a faithful member and not want the Church to better.

 

Your sprinkle bits and pieces all over the Internet is a gross misrepresentation of what the church actually does, and indicates some significant ignorance on your part.

 

I fail to see how DBMormon's - or your - mocking relates to wanting to make the church better. Sounds much more like wanting to make it over in your own image.

[jwhitlock]

It doesn't... that's why I was saying that the relevant question (for me) was not the same question as Palerider.

 

For me, I don't see this documentary as a strong example of the church hiding its history.  Though I believe there are clear examples out there of the church not being entirely forthcoming (the Brigham Young manual for RS/PH, for example).  That would then lead us to a discussion about whether not being forthcoming about certain aspects of the prophet's life & teachings was appropriate and/or productive.

 

Critics claim the church hides its history. The other side of the pendulum is that nothing has been hidden. The truth lies somewhere in between; I don't see that acknowledged by those whining on this thread about inaccuracies and entrenched dishonesty, as they see it.

[DBMormon]

Quite a few of us acknowledge difficult issues. The difference is in how we perceive and work with those differences. His mocking tone in this thread is definitely not a breath of fresh air. On the contrary, it's rather frustrating to see valid issues dealt with in such an unproductive and contentious manner.

 

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

Edited May 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[thatjimguy]

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.......

 

 

Is there a link to this so I can watch it? Also, a link about the information about being married to Joseph Smith?

[mormonnewb]

Critics claim the church hides its history. The other side of the pendulum is that nothing has been hidden. The truth lies somewhere in between; I don't see that acknowledged by those whining on this thread about inaccuracies and entrenched dishonesty, as they see it.

I will acknowledge that the truth lies somewhere in between and the Church is becoming increasingly more open (e.g., Joseph Smith Papers). Furthermore, I acknowledge the difficulty in doing so. It would be counterproductive to start airing "dirty laundry" for members who don't know (or care) about MMM, peep stones, etc. On the other hand, the Church is trying to avoid the situation where a saint feels "lied to."

I'm certainly guilty of not being sympathetic enough to the Church's predicament, just as I would suggest that others aren't sympathetic enough to those who are trying to re-establish trust in the Church. If I ever became suicidal enough to cheat on Mrs. Newb, I can imagine that she might be suspicious of my future activities; perhaps even overly suspicious. I'm not sure if I could ever fully regain her trust, but I know one thing that would not help -- if I denied that she had any cause for concern and chalked up her suspicion to looking for a reason to criticize her one true husband.

[jwhitlock]

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

 

Then feel free to do so and to deal with it in a productive manner as the rest of us have. You seem to think that you're somehow unique in your experiences.

 

But don't mock the church and its members and make generalizations like you have done here. People are likely to respond in kind, and that doesn't lead to any productive resolution of things.

 

And I'm talking as one of the "over 55" crowd that you apparently don't think so highly of. Evidently none of us think for ourselves, or have ever had to deal with the same experiences you have.

 

Not.

[jwhitlock]

I will acknowledge that the truth lies somewhere in between and the Church is becoming increasingly more open (e.g., Joseph Smith Papers). Furthermore, I acknowledge the difficulty in doing so. It would be counterproductive to start airing "dirty laundry" for members who don't know (or care) about MMM, peep stones, etc. On the other hand, the Church is trying to avoid the situation where a saint feels "lied to."

I'm certainly guilty of not being sympathetic enough to the Church's predicament, just as I would suggest that others aren't sympathetic enough to those who are trying to re-establish trust in the Church. If I ever became suicidal enough to cheat on Mrs. Newb, I can imagine that she might be suspicious of my future activities; perhaps even overly suspicious. I'm not sure if I could ever fully regain her trust, but I know one thing that would not help -- if I denied that she had any cause for concern and chalked up her suspicion to looking for a reason to criticize her one true husband.

 

Then understand that there is a great deal of grey area when it comes to the church. We have to make sense of it in our own way, and within the framework of the foundation that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, that the church as an organization is God's restored church, and that it is led by a prophet today who gets direction from God.

 

What frustrates me is when people make generalized or absolutist statements about the church. It happens on both ends of the spectrum. You've been guilty of it here when you've claimed that the church is directly responsible for and approves everything that happens under its umbrella - a claim which is basically untenable and makes no allowance for grey areas involving the exercise of personal agency. That agency is something that God Himself is loathe to interfere with and must be understood as perhaps the guiding principle of what goes on in the church.

 

So when I hear about cultural Mormons who are rigid in their absolutist interpretations, and see critics of the church who are rigid in their generalizations and stereotyping, I see two groups of people who are actually very similar in what they are doing.

 

The rest of us in the church - who are probably the majority - deal with things in our own way, balancing all the apparent contradictions that occur because people are involved, with what we understand to be really important and true about the church.

 

So there you go. I can understand Angst, but I don't have much patience with it when it manifests itself in destructive ways.