Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Teancum]

Because in Mormon theology there is no hell. There is an outer darkness but those who qualify are few and far between (like maybe a few handful of people here and there). But the Mormon God (the One, True God, mind you) is so merciful that even if some do not qualify for the highest degree of exaltation, they will still enter into a state of glory, as opposed to the evangelical god who will condemn a group of people to eternal fire and brimstone for not quite getting it.

 

 

Mormon doctrine does have hell in two ways. Outer Darkness which is permanent and those who do not repent will suffer in some sort of hell though it is not eternal.  Of course a lower kingdom may be some sort of hell as well.

[Teancum]

So, if you are so innocent, Teancum, why do you always put the most negative spin on any issue dealing with the LDS Church?  If the essays were written and published, according to you it must only be because the Church was forced to, not due to simple honesty.  For you it just has to be that way.

 

To me, none of these issues are new and I was writing about them before Mike Quinn (whom I greatly respect; and he cites me in his book, but in another place he used my work without attribution).  There is literally nothing new in the essays you are referring to, except that they have been formally published and placed on the Church website -- a website which could not exist back in the day.  Perhaps you are too young to realize that, or to realize where LDS scholarship has been all these years.  Your habit of casting aspersions is absurd in light of what we actually know and have seen over the years.  Particularly when Leonard Arrington was Church Historian (and when Richard Howard was RLDS Historian).  No one was hiding the stuff, even though the general public actually had no idea that it existed.

 

You imagine that Fawn Brodie wrote real history?  She did not, and was not trained in History.  She was an English teacher, and a very good novelist when it came to Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson (she made the same unprofessional errors writing about Jefferson that she made writing about Joseph, and non-Mormon historians took her to task for it; her factual errors are legion).

 

Juanita Brooks was a lifelong faithful, temple-endowed Mormon who told the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  She was never disciplined for it and continued to hold her temple recommend till the day she died.

 

Mike Quinn continues to bear his testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  He was not excommunicated for apostasy.  He was among the great crew of historians working under Arrington back in the 1970s.  According to Mike, Fawn Brodie was very bitter toward the LDS Church, and that was the true source of her view of Joseph Smith.

 

 

 

Well Robert I guess i am just a filthy apostate right?  That is why I "why do you always put the most negative spin on any issue dealing with the LDS Church."  Right?

 

I have been around for sometime.  I am well read.  I used to do LDS apologetics. Personal integrity would no longer allow me to do so.

 

So please show me where the LDS Church has published and made accessible to the average member the info in these essays on a regular and routine basis  say before 1995?  Otherwise you comments above to me are simply the typical LDS apologist drivel and I am rather disappointed with you.  I thought you were above that.  But if you can show me I will eat me words.

[rockpond]

It is one thing I have not figured out regarding many issues. The Church has made statements in the past of many false accusations being made against the Church but the Church has done little to address them.  There is many ways to address them like having articles in the Ensign or some other monthly publication.  This should have been done decades ago and then it would not have to play catch up.  Instead of addressing small wounds, they let the wound fester and now there is a serious infection.  Things can be turned around but a lot of this was needlessly caused by inaction.

 

Agreed.

[rockpond]

So, if you are so innocent, Teancum, why do you always put the most negative spin on any issue dealing with the LDS Church?  If the essays were written and published, according to you it must only be because the Church was forced to, not due to simple honesty.  For you it just has to be that way.

 

To me, none of these issues are new and I was writing about them before Mike Quinn (whom I greatly respect; and he cites me in his book, but in another place he used my work without attribution).  There is literally nothing new in the essays you are referring to, except that they have been formally published and placed on the Church website -- a website which could not exist back in the day.  Perhaps you are too young to realize that, or to realize where LDS scholarship has been all these years.  Your habit of casting aspersions is absurd in light of what we actually know and have seen over the years.  Particularly when Leonard Arrington was Church Historian (and when Richard Howard was RLDS Historian).  No one was hiding the stuff, even though the general public actually had no idea that it existed.

 

You imagine that Fawn Brodie wrote real history?  She did not, and was not trained in History.  She was an English teacher, and a very good novelist when it came to Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson (she made the same unprofessional errors writing about Jefferson that she made writing about Joseph, and non-Mormon historians took her to task for it; her factual errors are legion).

 

Juanita Brooks was a lifelong faithful, temple-endowed Mormon who told the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  She was never disciplined for it and continued to hold her temple recommend till the day she died.

 

Mike Quinn continues to bear his testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  He was not excommunicated for apostasy.  He was among the great crew of historians working under Arrington back in the 1970s.  According to Mike, Fawn Brodie was very bitter toward the LDS Church, and that was the true source of her view of Joseph Smith.

 

Can we agree that the average LDS Church member has not read Brodie, Brooks, Quinn, or your works?  And, can we agree that the average LDS Church member does not even know who Leonard Arrington is?

 

So, where would the average LDS Church member expect to have learned about polygamy, for example?  Or multiple first vision accounts, as another example?  I think they would expect to learn in the (roughly) 150 hours per year that they spend in weekly church meetings.  But information on those topics is scarce.  The Teachings of the Prophets:  Brigham Young manual had all references to polygamy stripped from BY's teachings.  That was intentional.  Clearly.  Sunday school and seminary manuals do not have the teachers instructing on multiple first vision accounts.

 

Did the Church "hide" these issues?  One could reasonably say "no".  Did they intentionally avoid sharing them with members?  Yes.

 

And now we have to deal with the consequences... the essays seems to be a reaction to more and more people getting online to discuss these issues.  MormonThink, Mormon Stories, the bloggernacle, Facebook, Reddit, forums, etc.  Rather than being proactive as a church in dealing with troubling issues, decisions made by past church leaders now have us reacting to problems created by teaching a sanitized version of our history.

Edited June 27, 2015 by rockpond

[Kenngo1969]

Based on what I've seen regarding student attention and retention in CES seminary and institute courses, that may be the best place to hide them.

Right.  Just like the best place to hide stuff from the membership at large is in the Ensign.

[Teancum]

Can we agree that the average LDS Church member has not read Brodie, Brooks, Quinn, or your works?  And, can we agree that the average LDS Church member does not even know who Leonard Arrington is?

 

So, where would the average LDS Church member expect to have learned about polygamy, for example?  Or multiple first vision accounts, as another example?  I think they would expect to learn in the (roughly) 150 hours per year that they spend in weekly church meetings.  But information on those topics is scarce.  The Teachings of the Prophets:  Brigham Young manual had all references to polygamy stripped from BY's teachings.  That was intentional.  Clearly.  Sunday school and seminary manuals do not have the teachers instructing on multiple first vision accounts.

 

Did the Church "hide" these issues?  One could reasonably say "no".  Did they intentionally avoid sharing them with members?  Yes.

 

And now we have to deal with the consequences... the essays seems to be a reaction to more and more people getting online to discuss these issues.  MormonThink, Mormon Stories, the bloggernacle, Facebook, Reddit, forums, etc.  Rather than being proactive as a church in dealing with troubling issues, decisions made by past church leaders now have us reacting to problems created by teaching a sanitized version of our history.

  Well said Rockpond.

[carbon dioxide]

My 13 year old son just last week told me he is starting to have doubts and questioning some of our beliefs. Not really from anything he has read from anyone else but just having normal questions.  I am happy to hear this as now he is starting to think about things.  We have been very bad with FHE and I think this could be a good time to start having it again.  Instead of having vanilla topics, perhaps I will have lessons on the things that are not taught in Church but what he should now so he is prepared for all this stuff.  I don't know if he will go on a mission and I have told him that I will support any decision he decides.  I only want him to go if he truly wants to and not from outside pressure.  If he does go, he will be far better prepared and informed than when I went.  In the end, it is the parents who are responsible for teaching their kids all this stuff the Church does not teach in Sunday School.  The parents know their kids better and know what they will respond to better than a Sunday School teacher who job is simply to teach the basics.

Edited June 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[halconero]

We have been very bad with FHE...

 

Here's hoping that judgement day doesn't measure our righteousness in the amount of times a family held FHE, as I'm pretty sure my family growing up would rate somewhere lower than outer darkness.

[Russell C McGregor]

Can we agree that the average LDS Church member has not read Brodie, Brooks, Quinn, or your works?  And, can we agree that the average LDS Church member does not even know who Leonard Arrington is?

Speaking only for myself, I read Brodie when I was 15, and Arrington before there was an internet. I've known about Quinn and Brooks for years.

 

So, where would the average LDS Church member expect to have learned about polygamy, for example?

I learned about it in Seminary. It's also mentioned in Gospel Doctrine manuals.

Or multiple first vision accounts, as another example?

Institute.

I think they would expect to learn in the (roughly) 150 hours per year that they spend in weekly church meetings.

Why?

There are rather more important things to learn about.

But information on those topics is scarce.  The Teachings of the Prophets:  Brigham Young manual had all references to polygamy stripped from BY's teachings.  That was intentional.  Clearly.  Sunday school and seminary manuals do not have the teachers instructing on multiple first vision accounts.

 

Did the Church "hide" these issues?  One could reasonably say "no".  Did they intentionally avoid sharing them with members?  Yes.

 

And now we have to deal with the consequences... the essays seems to be a reaction to more and more people getting online to discuss these issues.  MormonThink, Mormon Stories, the bloggernacle, Facebook, Reddit, forums, etc.

Interesting how the first two sources you mention are explicitly anti-Mormon ones.

 Rather than being proactive as a church in dealing with troubling issues, decisions made by past church leaders now have us reacting to problems created by teaching a sanitized version of our history.

Every version of history is "sanitised" or otherwise skewed.

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think WWII started on December 7, 1941?

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think Patton defeated Rommel in North Africa?

How many histories of WWII mention American soldiers shooting prisoners?

Nobody teaches "the whole story." Nobody.

The whole story is far beyond anyone's competence.

And those who self-righteously claim to provide the "warts and all" history are the deliberately dishonest ones.

BTW, how do you like my new sig?

[Robert F. Smith]

Well Robert I guess i am just a filthy apostate right?  That is why I "why do you always put the most negative spin on any issue dealing with the LDS Church."  Right?

Your words, not mine.  You even put a negative spin on negativity.  Does it ever occur to you to discuss these matters in a gentlemanly and professional way?

 

I have been around for sometime.  I am well read.  I used to do LDS apologetics. Personal integrity would no longer allow me to do so.

I know a number of men who once did so-called apologetics in a vicious and unkind manner.  I am not surprised that they carried those attitudes over to anti-Mormon mode, but it is so unnecessary.  Haters just tend to hate . . .  What is accomplished thereby?

 

So please show me where the LDS Church has published and made accessible to the average member the info in these essays on a regular and routine basis  say before 1995?  Otherwise you comments above to me are simply the typical LDS apologist drivel and I am rather disappointed with you.  I thought you were above that.  But if you can show me I will eat me words.

I did not say that the "Church has published and made accessible to the average member the info in these essays on a regular and routine basis" back in the day.  Why would anyone deliberately formulate the issue in that fashion (despite what I have already said)?  Perhaps in order to guarantee the finding of a guilty verdict before the fact -- as in a Soviet style show trial?

 

Why do you set it at what went on before 1995, and fail to refer to well-known historical works from before that era?  A serious historian (even a young one) would read old issues of the Journal of Mormon History, the JWHA Journal, BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, and the like, and would make himself fully familiar with the numerous books published by professional historians who had full access the LDS Archives in decades past, Leonard Arrington and Mike Quinn only a couple that I have mentioned.  One can easily search online for books by them, and they refer to a cornucopia of other such works.  Scholars and students of Mormon history (both LDS and non-LDS) have been having a conversation with each other now for generations without casting aspersions.  You could easily avail yourself of all that -- without casting aspersions.

 

I don't care whether you are Mormon or anti-Mormon.  What I do prefer to read is well-informed and forthright discussion based on fact not fancy.

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................................................

Every version of history is "sanitised" or otherwise skewed.

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think WWII started on December 7, 1941?

Jay Leno did some "Jaywalking" among college students and they couldn't even get within a decade of anything in WW II.

Answer: 1939

 

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think Patton defeated Rommel in North Africa?

They never heard of El Alamein, and have no idea that Field Marshal Montgomery beat Rommel there.  They haven't even seen the movie.

 

How many histories of WWII mention American soldiers shooting prisoners?

My favorite is the the day Dachau Concentration Camp was liberated by troops of the U. S. Seventh Army on April 29, 1945.  They immediately lined up 346 SS guards and machine-gunned them, while 200 more were killed by the inmates.

[Mystery Meat]

Mormon doctrine does have hell in two ways. Outer Darkness which is permanent and those who do not repent will suffer in some sort of hell though it is not eternal.  Of course a lower kingdom may be some sort of hell as well.

 

No, a "lower kingdom" is not some sort of hell, at least not in the same sense as what most Christians would think of. It is a kingdom of glory, not a lake of fire and brimstone.

[rockpond]

Speaking only for myself, I read Brodie when I was 15, and Arrington before there was an internet. I've known about Quinn and Brooks for years.

 

I learned about it in Seminary. It's also mentioned in Gospel Doctrine manuals.

Institute.

Why?

There are rather more important things to learn about.

Interesting how the first two sources you mention are explicitly anti-Mormon ones.

Every version of history is "sanitised" or otherwise skewed.

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think WWII started on December 7, 1941?

Do you know how many Americans I've met who think Patton defeated Rommel in North Africa?

How many histories of WWII mention American soldiers shooting prisoners?

Nobody teaches "the whole story." Nobody.

The whole story is far beyond anyone's competence.

And those who self-righteously claim to provide the "warts and all" history are the deliberately dishonest ones.

BTW, how do you like my new sig?

 

I don't think you fall into the "average LDS Church member" category.

 

When I was a seminary teacher I was specifically instructed by my CES-employed supervisor to not discuss the details of polygamy with my seminary students.  I remember having a student ask me, outside of class, if it was true that JS practiced polygamy (since it wasn't part of the curriculum).  Fearful of answering directly and not yet knowing all the details myself, I referred the student to her parents.

 

I graduated from BYU having attended all required religion classes and a number of elective religion classes.  I was never taught about the multiple first vision accounts.  My understanding is that they just recently added that to the institute curriculum.

 

I'm not sure what your point is with the rest of your post.  Do you not think that we, as a church, are now dealing with the ramifications of church members finding out about challenging historical issues through sources outside of those directed by church leadership?  Are the essays not a reaction to more information being available to the average LDS church member?

 

As for your sig... I don't have a problem with your quote from the proclamation.  I support that.  I don't find efforts to define "faithful LDS" consistent with recent messages by President Uchtdorf and Elder Christofferson.

[Jeanne]

This is a question for Rockpond.  As a member or former member of the Bishopric, are you allowed to bring these topics up or even to speak of them to help with the knowledge of these things to the membership of your ward?  I hope so,  I can tell that you would have tact and though perhaps not persuasion but change the discussion that I think would retain and sustain membership. 

[rockpond]

This is a question for Rockpond.  As a member or former member of the Bishopric, are you allowed to bring these topics up or even to speak of them to help with the knowledge of these things to the membership of your ward?  I hope so,  I can tell that you would have tact and though perhaps not persuasion but change the discussion that I think would retain and sustain membership. 

 

I'm still a counselor in the Bishopric... for all the amazing qualities my Bishop has, he hasn't gotten smart enough to release me.  

 

Am I allowed to bring up these topics?  I guess.  But I'm not entirely sure how to answer that.  So I'll make two points:

 

1)  I feel that my calling is to support the Bishop in HIS calling.  I take that very seriously.  If I am speaking as the Bishop's counselor, I do my best to represent him in a way that I believe would meet his approval.  Further, when you are going to kneel and pray as a bishopric, I believe you need unity.  Since, for example, I know how the Bishop feels about gay marriage - I don't share my views in my capacity as his counselor.  

 

2) I recognize that many of the topics covered by the essays are very sensitive.  As I've stated before, I have seen some of those essays trigger faith crises.  Creating faith crises among members of my ward would be antithetical to the purpose of my calling.  Our stake presidency is aware of the essays, has mentioned them to the bishops, and has mentioned them in stake conference.  I bring up the topics in our bishopric/PEC/ward council meetings, when appropriate.  But, I have not yet felt the need to recommend to my Bishop that we discuss them at a ward level.  (I struggle with this as part of me feels that more open discussion is needed but for now, the part of me that feels they could cause faith crises is still winning.)

 

I hope that answers your question.  But feel free to hit me back with any follow up questions.

[Jeanne]

I'm still a counselor in the Bishopric... for all the amazing qualities my Bishop has, he hasn't gotten smart enough to release me.  

 

Am I allowed to bring up these topics?  I guess.  But I'm not entirely sure how to answer that.  So I'll make two points:

 

1)  I feel that my calling is to support the Bishop in HIS calling.  I take that very seriously.  If I am speaking as the Bishop's counselor, I do my best to represent him in a way that I believe would meet his approval.  Further, when you are going to kneel and pray as a bishopric, I believe you need unity.  Since, for example, I know how the Bishop feels about gay marriage - I don't share my views in my capacity as his counselor.  

 

2) I recognize that many of the topics covered by the essays are very sensitive.  As I've stated before, I have seen some of those essays trigger faith crises.  Creating faith crises among members of my ward would be antithetical to the purpose of my calling.  Our stake presidency is aware of the essays, has mentioned them to the bishops, and has mentioned them in stake conference.  I bring up the topics in our bishopric/PEC/ward council meetings, when appropriate.  But, I have not yet felt the need to recommend to my Bishop that we discuss them at a ward level.  (I struggle with this as part of me feels that more open discussion is needed but for now, the part of me that feels they could cause faith crises is still winning.)

 

I hope that answers your question.  But feel free to hit me back with any follow up questions.

Thanks Rockpond for your reply.  I can imagine at times it would be frustrating for you but I completely understand and respect your relationship with the Bishop and your responsibilities as a counselor.  Sometimes I think it would have been better for the church and it's people to have had the essays sent to Stake Presidents with copies for every Bishop before they were even published online.  That would have prepared those who feel responsible for their ward and could have been discussed in your case with prayer as a bishopric for guidance.  I hope that those who have had a faith crisis because of these essays,,(for which I would definitely understand) don't shoot the messenger..that is, it would/should NOT be under your accountability for the decisions/testimonies of those who are trying to come to grips with what they are learning.  No matter what choices any of us make, those choices should be made with truth. 

[Russell C McGregor]

Jay Leno did some "Jaywalking" among college students and they couldn't even get within a decade of anything in WW II.

Answer: 1939

 

They never heard of El Alamein, and have no idea that Field Marshal Montgomery beat Rommel there.  They haven't even seen the movie.

 

My favorite is the the day Dachau Concentration Camp was liberated by troops of the U. S. Seventh Army on April 29, 1945.  They immediately lined up 346 SS guards and machine-gunned them, while 200 more were killed by the inmates.

I'm not sure about Dachau in particular, but I do know that the SS abandoned a number of the concentration camps as the allies got closer, turning them over to ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers. So while I understand the sentiments of those 7th Army troops, they may have been somewhat hasty.

[readstoomuch]

Can we agree that the average LDS Church member has not read Brodie, Brooks, Quinn, or your works?  And, can we agree that the average LDS Church member does not even know who Leonard Arrington is?

 

So, where would the average LDS Church member expect to have learned about polygamy, for example?  Or multiple first vision accounts, as another example?  I think they would expect to learn in the (roughly) 150 hours per year that they spend in weekly church meetings.  But information on those topics is scarce.  The Teachings of the Prophets:  Brigham Young manual had all references to polygamy stripped from BY's teachings.  That was intentional.  Clearly.  Sunday school and seminary manuals do not have the teachers instructing on multiple first vision accounts.

 

Did the Church "hide" these issues?  One could reasonably say "no".  Did they intentionally avoid sharing them with members?  Yes.

 

And now we have to deal with the consequences... the essays seems to be a reaction to more and more people getting online to discuss these issues.  MormonThink, Mormon Stories, the bloggernacle, Facebook, Reddit, forums, etc.  Rather than being proactive as a church in dealing with troubling issues, decisions made by past church leaders now have us reacting to problems created by teaching a sanitized version of our history.

Ok, I`ll bite. I looked at Fawn Brodie`s book because my mom brought it home to read in 1975. I think most of the Mormon women in our town were reading it because the anti-Mormons and apostates kept throwing it in their face. It creates a list of wives, but totally gets the details wrong. It is a horrible source for reliable information about polygamy, but it does make it abundantly clear that Joseph practiced polygamy. We talked about Joseph Smith being a polygamist in seminary a few years after I saw Fawn Brodie`s book. We also talked about different versions of the First Vision. When I went to the public library in the late 70`s there were multiple copies of Joseph Smith, an American Prophet by John Henry Evans. Also Joseph Smith, the First Mormon by Donna Hill. Both books covered polygamy pretty thoroughly as well as other controversial topics. They had been checked out dozens of times. The same with Fawn Brodies book and The Mormon Experience by Arrington and Bitton. Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian, so people heard about him in Conference. I met Leonard at a conference at a University 50 miles from my house in 1983. There were scads of articles about Church history in the 70s and early 80s Ensigns. That is where I read the most about Church history. They was an article every month. I copied some of the articles and had them on my mission.

I may not have heard a bunch of history at church, but I did in seminary and through the Ensign. So, I know the items were around and I know they werre available.

[Teancum]

Your words, not mine. You even put a negative spin on negativity. Does it ever occur to you to discuss these matters in a gentlemanly and professional way?

I know a number of men who once did so-called apologetics in a vicious and unkind manner. I am not surprised that they carried those attitudes over to anti-Mormon mode, but it is so unnecessary. Haters just tend to hate . . . What is accomplished thereby?

I did not say that the "Church has published and made accessible to the average member the info in these essays on a regular and routine basis" back in the day. Why would anyone deliberately formulate the issue in that fashion (despite what I have already said)? Perhaps in order to guarantee the finding of a guilty verdict before the fact -- as in a Soviet style show trial?

Why do you set it at what went on before 1995, and fail to refer to well-known historical works from before that era? A serious historian (even a young one) would read old issues of the Journal of Mormon History, the JWHA Journal, BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, and the like, and would make himself fully familiar with the numerous books published by professional historians who had full access the LDS Archives in decades past, Leonard Arrington and Mike Quinn only a couple that I have mentioned. One can easily search online for books by them, and they refer to a cornucopia of other such works. Scholars and students of Mormon history (both LDS and non-LDS) have been having a conversation with each other now for generations without casting aspersions. You could easily avail yourself of all that -- without casting aspersions.

I don't care whether you are Mormon or anti-Mormon. What I do prefer to read is well-informed and forthright discussion based on fact not fancy.

Robert, my comment about being an apostate is sarcasm and in the mode of Daniel Peterson and his sarcastic self deprecation based on what others say about him. One person on this board had labeled me such so I am playing around with it.

Next I picked 1995 because that is when the internet started becoming more widely used. It is from that point that the average person...more so as time moved on...had much more access than what you refer to above.

I never claimed that there were not scholarly papers or journals on sensitive topics. Just that the average member did not have access nor did the church do anything to make such info readily available . Your comments about having read a lot of these issues seemed to apply otherwise. If I misunderstood I apologize.

I am happy to have civil dialogue. It seems you tossed a volley at my first post in this thread because you found it strident. I am happy to attempt to change the tone with you, I have typically found you reasonable and calm.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Teancum

[Nevo]

We talked about Joseph Smith being a polygamist in seminary a few years after I saw Fawn Brodie`s book. We also talked about different versions of the First Vision. When I went to the public library in the late 70`s there were multiple copies of Joseph Smith, an American Prophet by John Henry Evans. Also Joseph Smith, the First Mormon by Donna Hill. Both books covered polygamy pretty thoroughly as well as other controversial topics. They had been checked out dozens of times. The same with Fawn Brodies book and The Mormon Experience by Arrington and Bitton. Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian, so people heard about him in Conference. I met Leonard at a conference at a University 50 miles from my house in 1983. There were scads of articles about Church history in the 70s and early 80s Ensigns. That is where I read the most about Church history. They was an article every month. I copied some of the articles and had them on my mission.

I may not have heard a bunch of history at church, but I did in seminary and through the Ensign. So, I know the items were around and I know they werre available.

 

Yes, there were scads of items of Church history in Church magazines in the 1970s and early 80s. How many of them discussed Joseph's involvement in folk magic, his 1826 trial, the Fanny Alger incident, his secret marriages to teenage housemaids and to other men's wives, etc.? The only way for a Church member to learn about any of this before the late 1970s was to read Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History (first published in 1945). Of course, most Mormons up to the present day are still in the dark on these issues.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Nevo

[rockpond]

Ok, I`ll bite. I looked at Fawn Brodie`s book because my mom brought it home to read in 1975. I think most of the Mormon women in our town were reading it because the anti-Mormons and apostates kept throwing it in their face. It creates a list of wives, but totally gets the details wrong. It is a horrible source for reliable information about polygamy, but it does make it abundantly clear that Joseph practiced polygamy. We talked about Joseph Smith being a polygamist in seminary a few years after I saw Fawn Brodie`s book. We also talked about different versions of the First Vision. When I went to the public library in the late 70`s there were multiple copies of Joseph Smith, an American Prophet by John Henry Evans. Also Joseph Smith, the First Mormon by Donna Hill. Both books covered polygamy pretty thoroughly as well as other controversial topics. They had been checked out dozens of times. The same with Fawn Brodies book and The Mormon Experience by Arrington and Bitton. Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian, so people heard about him in Conference. I met Leonard at a conference at a University 50 miles from my house in 1983. There were scads of articles about Church history in the 70s and early 80s Ensigns. That is where I read the most about Church history. They was an article every month. I copied some of the articles and had them on my mission.

I may not have heard a bunch of history at church, but I did in seminary and through the Ensign. So, I know the items were around and I know they werre available.

 

I can't speak to seminary curriculum in the 70's but since it didn't have us teaching the details of polygamy or first vision accounts in the 2000's, I suspect that your teacher departed from the curriculum to teach those things.

 

Your post here seems to suggest that members had abundant access to and were taught about the details of polygamy and multiple first vision accounts.  So what happened?  Why are so many people now shocked to learn of these things?  Why did the church need to publish the essays if the information was already being taught as part of the curriculum?

[KevinG]

I took a break from the boards for several months and you know how many times I heard about the essays from LDS friends, Ward and Stake members, and others interested in religion?

 

Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada, Null, None...

 

That is the huge impact the essays are having.  On the other hand apologists and critics alike have a handy reference section to link to support their opinions.

[Calm]

 (KevinG's here!)

[KevinG]

 (KevinG's here!)

 

Have you learned nothing from the adoration thread?     You are going to give me a big head.

[Calm]

Have you learned nothing from the adoration thread?     You are going to give me a big head.

Yes, you are not one of my leaders so it is okay....or at least I think that was the message.