Being And Becoming A "well Read Member

[JLHPROF]

Joseph Fielding Smith's Essentials in Church History, 1922.   Basically every LDS household had this book prior to 1975.

 

Oh careful!  When I claimed that basically every member here had a copy of book, someone felt obliged to start a poll.

Turned out, only 1/3 had a copy of the book.

[The Nehor]

Oh careful!  When I claimed that basically every member here had a copy of book, someone felt obliged to start a poll.

Turned out, only 1/3 had a copy of the book.

To be fair roughly 2/3rds of the posters here are illiterate so of course they would not have the book.

[Nevo]

I think you're overstating the positive feelings that Deseret Book, and Church leaders in general, might have had towards those books.  Especially Mormon Enigma (start on page 40, with important comments from Elder Oaks on page 45).  On page 47 it notes that the author's work can never be cited in any Church publication.

 

I didn't mean to imply positive feelings on the part of Deseret Book or Church leaders. I understand even Bushman's book (and RLB is as devout as they come) has had a mixed reception among the Church leadership. And understandably so. As far as I know, his book hasn't been cited in any Church manuals or magazines either.

[cinepro]

I didn't mean to imply positive feelings on the part of Deseret Book or Church leaders. I understand even Bushman's book (and RLB is as devout as they come) has had a mixed reception among the Church leadership. And understandably so. As far as I know, his book hasn't been cited in any Church manuals or magazines either.

 

But it hasn't been banned (as far as I know).

[mfbukowski]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, your posting history against me has been very unkind, and I see based on the remainder of your post, I am justified in continuing to question your intentions

 

Moreso, my lack of mind failed me with your first post.

 

 

 

 

Mind read much, can you teach me how to mind read?  

 

I have not accused the Churhc of anything. I asked what sources would make a member "well read" and thus informed on Joseph Smith's polygamy.

If I misunderstood your intentions I apologize. I have no clue what mind reading has to do with it.

Edited November 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

I didn't mean to imply positive feelings on the part of Deseret Book or Church leaders. I understand even Bushman's book (and RLB is as devout as they come) has had a mixed reception among the Church leadership. And understandably so. As far as I know, his book hasn't been cited in any Church manuals or magazines either.

 

Not surprising as I do not remember that ones calling to Church leadership required that one plug into the Borg.

[mfbukowski]

So I think your response to the opening post was expectionaly uncharitable.

Sorry. In certain cases I think a lack of charity is warranted, cleansing the temple was not a charitable act either. When warranted, I will try to keep to just "uncharitable" rather than "exceptionally uncharitable".

 

The LDS essays on the topic of polygamy, esspecially JS polygamy expressly state that well read members of the faith have known about his practice (also seems ot suggest for a long time).

 Yes?

It seems a reasonable question to ask, well if that is the case what are these books that they were reading.

Well I think books have been listed.  In 2014 I think "well-read" would include the internet.

 

I am nothing close to a scholar on these matters- in fact I think church history has little importance to the "truth" of what the church teaches so I make a point of NOT studying church history, but I have been aware of these issues for years and years.

 

If I know about something in church history, while admitting that I am NOT "well-read" in this subject, clearly it is not that difficult to find out. 

 

 

My understanding is that prior to this there were no accessible books on the subject. Mormon Enigma also came out with very heavy and overt stigma.

 

Since then there have been a few more books but Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is the first one that was released and not immediately considered Anti-mormon in tone.

Not immediately and not since.  But of course those who ARE well-read have already posted the names of books which have been around for years with this information available.

 

I think it is silly to have a discussion about the definition of "well-read".   What is the point of this??

[mfbukowski]

My Dad showed me the same thing when I was a teenager.  He's a passionate genealogist and he wanted to show me the families of some famous people to keep my interest.

We looked at most of the prophets of the Church and I saw Joseph Smith's huge list of spouses.  And then Brigham's, John's, Wilford's, Lorenzo's, Joseph F.'s, Heber's and even those who came after with multiple eternal sealings.  We talked about it.

It made an impression.

I don't know how one could join the church and NOT know about polygamy.  It's about all people know about the church BEFORE they know anything else.  They talk about it in Broadway plays and in the NY Times (see current thread)

 

So the first thing I did when investigating the church was do some checking into it- and thought nothing of it.  We have no exposes about what happened to all of Abraham's wives, Solomon's  etc.  No gossip has made it into the history books, no squabbles etc.

 

I had no problem with it- I mean really who's business is it?   Does anyone worry about being Jewish because they used to practice polygamy?  I mean who cares??

[mfbukowski]

 

I think you're overstating the positive feelings that Deseret Book, and Church leaders in general, might have had towards those books.  Especially Mormon Enigma (start on page 40, with important comments from Elder Oaks on page 45).  On page 47 it notes that the author's work can never be cited in any Church publication.

And clearly anyone well-read about Mormonism would be very familiar with page 47 of that copy of Dialogue.

[stemelbow]

Historical matters tend to often be issues that are never resolved. New books are written for all sorts of topics and if ya don't keep up on the new material you'll get left behind.

if members want to keep up on scholarship as it relates to their faith they have plenty to keep them busy for the rest of their lives. And they may never actually get all caught up because as soon as they think they do, more stuff will be heading out on the shelves, or popping up electronically these days.

So Members will always get accused of not knowing enough about their faith by fellow members and non-members or ex-members alike.

[Mystery Meat]

Is it actually possible that folks who are not well-read on the topic of Mormonism are more informed about JS's Polygamy (by means of common sense) than members who have participated in the Church their whole lives?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it actually possible that folks who are not well-read on the topic of Mormonism are more informed about JS's Polygamy (by means of common sense) than members who have participated in the Church their whole lives?

Alas, it would appear so.

[Pahoran]

Is it actually possible that folks who are not well-read on the topic of Mormonism are more informed about JS's Polygamy (by means of common sense) than members who have participated in the Church their whole lives?

 

There's a saying: "The past is like a foreign country.  They do things differently there."

 

I've expanded it a little.  "The past is exactly like a foreign country.  Not only do they do things differently there, but most Americans are only vaguely aware that it even exists; and if you ask them about it, you'll find they just assume that it's a rather grubby place with undrinkable water that could be fixed up if the inhabitants just applied some hard work and good old American know-how."

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Guest]

It is not uncommon for members of the Church to accuse others of not reading enough to learn both sides of the story regarding events of early Church members.

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays, what could have a member have read to gain a balanced insight into the plural marriages of Joseph Smith?  Brian Hales volumes on Joseph Smith are not even 2 years old. 

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays and without encountering what would deemed "anti-Mormon" materials, what Church materials should should have caused an average member to realize Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

Two things...I knew while taking the discussions Joseph was a polygamist, because the Elders and the Sisters told us. Every book about Church history no matter the author wrote about it, as well as D&C 132...I don't know any member could not know.

The next thing are those who accuse others of not reading enough, is insulting to assume this and meant to se themselves on high for being so well versed, so smart and so worthy. It is an effort to boast of how much they read and how little others do. Methinks it is the pride of sin,mor the sin of pride, however it is supposed to be phrased. I guess I don't read enough, OT are not well read. I will not make such comments about how others should read more, because I do not know how much others read, or what they read.

[cdowis]

It is not uncommon for members of the Church to accuse others of not reading enough to learn both sides of the story regarding events of early Church members.

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays, what could have a member have read to gain a balanced insight into the plural marriages of Joseph Smith?  Brian Hales volumes on Joseph Smith are not even 2 years old. 

 

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays and without encountering what would deemed "anti-Mormon" materials, what Church materials should should have caused an average member to realize Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

 

Is it possible, has it occurred to you that many members I really don't care, and have other, more interesting things to research and read == such as the scriptures.

[Kaleb Webb]

As far as Joseph's polygamy goes, Rough Stone Rolling would be a good, Deseret Book-approved source for Joseph's polygamy. I think the Ensign has also mentioned it a handful of times.

[Silhouette]

I joined the Church in about 1976. I don't recall how I learned about polygamy. I think the missionaries who taught me the discussions might have taught me about it in some detail, or either they gave me reading assignments from the Doctrine and Covenants and I came across it in there, or a combination of both. I remember that I begged them for reading assignments every time they came, which was several times a week in those days. I read the Scriptures voraciously even before joining the Church.

Anyway, however I found out, I was neither surprised nor shocked about it, and was able to link it to the concept of eternal families in my mind. I guess that might be why the idea has never troubled me. I knew of it and accepted it at a very young age.

That being said, I don't think I knew about it before I got interested in the Church. It would have never occurred to me to look for any material on the subject. I'm not aware of any exposure that I would have had on it, and I don't know of any books that addressed the subject back then. There was no internet back then either.

It might have been rather difficult for someone with no knowledge of the faith, or very new to it, to be able to find anything on polygamy in years past. Especially if they had no idea that they ought to be looking for such.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Silhouette

[mfbukowski]

There's a saying: "The past is like a foreign country.  They do things differently there."

 

I've expanded it a little.  "The past is exactly like a foreign country.  Not only do they do things differently there, but most Americans are only vaguely aware that it even exists; and if you ask them about it, you'll find they just assume that it's a rather grubby place with undrinkable water that could be fixed up if the inhabitants just applied some hard work and good old American know-how."

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

So true!  Hey that's what happens when you have never lived in a 200 year old house.  Where I live, if a house is 60 years old, it is time to tear it down and rebuild it into a mansion.  Conspicuous consumption is the rule. Virtually no one lives in a house they have inherited.  We all get to start over with our 30 year mortgages, and "owe our soul to the company store".

 

Hey if that ain't "freedom" what is? 

[readstoomuch]

I think the Mormon Experience does a good job at talking about polygamy and the church in a broad perspective.  I agree with most of the posts, though Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Enigma seem to always bring out the worst motives in Joseph Smiths behavior.  I also find the The Story of the Mormons by Allen and Leonard to give a broad look at church history.  i really enjoy the perspective and then you can drill down on the topics that you like.  They are a little dated, but they have most of the information that you need.  Mormon Experience and Story of the Mormons are probably the most enjoyable church history books that I read.  Matt Bowmans recent book also and about anything by Teryl Givens you will do well by.  Best of luck and try to find broad perspectives that put Mormons within the context of their culture and time.  That makes it real and rather faith promoting in my opinion.  Good night all.  Thanks for having a board that doesn`t talk about polygamy respectively, unlike other unmentioned discussion/facebook groups.  

[cinepro]

I don't know how one could join the church and NOT know about polygamy.  It's about all people know about the church BEFORE they know anything else.  They talk about it in Broadway plays and in the NY Times (see current thread)

 

So the first thing I did when investigating the church was do some checking into it- and thought nothing of it.  We have no exposes about what happened to all of Abraham's wives, Solomon's  etc.  No gossip has made it into the history books, no squabbles etc.

 

I had no problem with it- I mean really who's business is it?   Does anyone worry about being Jewish because they used to practice polygamy?  I mean who cares??

 

 

Every time this subject comes up, someone expresses that sentiment, and thus it must be clarified again:

 

Generally speaking, people don't have a problem with the idea that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  It's the way he practiced it that people have a problem with (and generally don't know about).

 

If you knew the details about the deception to Emma, and the ages and marital statuses (and living arrangements) of his wives and it didn't bother you, then good on you.  But those are the things that people haven't generally known about, and generally get bothered about. 

[Calm]

As far as Joseph's polygamy goes, Rough Stone Rolling would be a good, Deseret Book-approved source for Joseph's polygamy. I think the Ensign has also mentioned it a handful of times.

A search using site:lds.org "rough stone rolling" and "Bushman" brought up three cites, including the recent plural marriage and the peace and violence in the early church articles so I don't think anyone should be shy about reading it if they want to.

 

PS:  "Richard Lyman Bushman" brought up almost 1800 hits so again, should feel comfortable reading his stuff if they want.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 Especially if they had no idea that they ought to be looking for such.

Knowing what questions to ask is a big thing.

[Calm]

 

So true!  Hey that's what happens when you have never lived in a 200 year old house.  Where I live, if a house is 60 years old, it is time to tear it down and rebuild it into a mansion.  Conspicuous consumption is the rule. Virtually no one lives in a house they have inherited.  

I lived in a 150 year old hunting lodge that was just built on to in about three stages.  Didn't teach me a thing about what it was like to live back then except to be very impressed by how they managed to build a massive floor to steepled ceiling fireplace with cannonball size rocks.  One of the previous owners had varnished them so it wasn't as attractive as it might have been and my parents put in gas so we didn't even get the experience of building fires in it like they used to (though I took advantage of other fireplaces of relatives to ensure I knew how to build a decent fire over the years).  We were tightly surrounded by other houses that had been built in the past fifty years so it was pure suburban Californian lifestyle, not a hint of the rural life the original owners must have lived…except perhaps for the first 5 years of living there we had to vacuum the swimming pool ourselves instead of the automatic that got put in after I went to college.

[Calm]

Mormon Experience and Story of the Mormons are probably the most enjoyable church history books that I read. 

 

Arrington (Mormon Experience) made for an enjoyable read, imo.  I liked his style better than Bushman's or any other historian on LDS stuff I've come across yet.   Very informative and created a whole picture and an ongoing timeline in my mind better than anyone else.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[sdc999]

The Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants are good places to start. You should also read Jeff Lindsay's LDS FAQ. From there you can go into all the history you want. But do keep in mind that our western mindset won't be much of a help with the middle eastern mindset.

 

Ps; I've been a member for 43 years. If someone doesn't know about LDS polygamy I really don't know what to tell them other than to start reading.

Maybe you can start by reading directly from Joseph:

 

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, May 26, 1844, p. 411

Oops, never mind.