Dishonesty

[HappyJackWagon]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

[The Nehor]

Because if we didn't give people like you something innocuous to complain about endlessly you might complain about something important and actually cause harm.

Checkmate.

[thesometimesaint]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

 

Tell me EVERYTHING you know. I have a minute. If you can't you're being dishonest.

[KevinG]

I can tell you my wife and I have a very good and respectful relationship.  I will share how we do that in order to teach my children to find and nurture the same.  Sometimes I will admit to them my mistakes in order so they can avoid making them.  However, if my children one day complained because I didn't share every weakness or bad moment in my marriage, then continued to blame me for their own shortcomings, I would tell them to grow up.

[ALarson]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

You're going to get a lot of posts like the first two above (which of course only deflect and do not answer your excellent questions).

 

I believe the real answer is that the leaders were trying to avoid revealing some things from church history that were embarrassing or that revealed some very uncomfortable facts from church history.  I also believe that they avoided revealing some facts as long as they possibly could (with a few isolated articles here and there that contained some of the truth scattered throughout the past many years ). 

 

Members are now leaving over what they've discovered online and the leaders know it's time to be more honest or transparent.

 

I do understand why much of what is now being discussed was avoided in the past.  KevinG gives a good example as to why the leaders have done this (first part of his post).  But, the last few sentences of his post do not describe what members are doing when they learn the truth (blaming others for their "own shortcomings".).  Also lying to your kids about an event in your life is quite different from just not talking about it to them.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

 

Because the seer stone narrative is problematic. Many of the anachronisms and other problems of the Book of Mormon can be easily explained away under the U&T model.  That becomes much more difficult if the exact words were being revealed to Joseph via the stone.

 

Additionally, church leadership has likely been embarrassed by the folk magic element in our past.

[JulieM]

I can tell you my wife and I have a very good and respectful relationship. I will share how we do that in order to teach my children to find and nurture the same. Sometimes I will admit to them my mistakes in order so they can avoid making them. However, if my children one day complained because I didn't share every weakness or bad moment in my marriage, then continued to blame me for their own shortcomings, I would tell them to grow up.

This is not a good comparison at all. A more accurate one would be if you'd told your kids a version of something from your history that was a misrepresentation or a dishonest account. Then you say nothing as the years go by with them trusting you and believing your version. They then learn the facts and truth about what really happened and you blame them for trusting & believing you and for being lazy and for not figuring out the true sooner.

Edited August 10, 2015 by JulieM

[KevinG]

Members do indeed blame others for their own inability to remain faithful to their covenants.  Not all - but some do.  I've seen it here and I've seen it in real life.  To build on my example:  My wife was abused (in a non-member home) but she never blamed her parents for her own difficulties in being a good parent.  And she is a damn good parent having taken the good they taught her, and rejected the bad, swearing that would never touch another generation.

 

If anyyone's expectation is that the Brethren should have been perfect in the telling of our history, warts and all.  And in publishing faith promoting history, along with more detailed history in materials for mature members (Institutes and histories) that nothing should be missed; at the same time they were trying to publish Sunday School materials that even the newest member could learn from, than their expectations are too cut and dry, too lofty, unrealistic.

 

If the argument is that they intentionally lied to people about our history that doesn't jive with what our own church historians have said about their level of knowledge of events, and the fact that history is not always clear from years out.

[KevinG]

This is not a good comparison at all. A more accurate one would be if you'd told your kids a version of something from your history that was a misrepresentation or a dishonest account. Then you say nothing as the years go by with them trusting you and believing your version. They then learn the facts and truth about what really happened and you blame them for believing you and for being lazy and not figuring out the true sooner.

 

Except the history was published.  I learned of much of it myself from Institute prior to the internet age.  There are few churches in the world with so many clear source documents, museum exhibits, publications, and lessons in public view as the LDS Church.  I'm not buying the mushroom theory of Sainthood.

[stemelbow]

I think people just started saying things about it, like 150 plus years ago. The story just built from there and leaders just ran with it, as it started anyway. When the errors were pointed out, it seems, many thought it was too late to correct, so they just let it keep going because afterall, the details of how it happened aren't clearly known and aren't what's important. There might have been some who played a hand in this who wanted to control the narrative in order to avoid embarrassment, but I think most just didn't see it as a big deal.

Its a shame but I think that's how things go. It's hard to implicate the whole Church because the Church is just a huge collection of people, some of them offering comments suggesting they are speaking for the Church. Once correlation got created and involved the message, it seems, just always had to be consistent.

[thesometimesaint]

You're going to get a lot of posts like the first two above (which of course only deflect and do not answer your excellent questions).

 

I believe the real answer is that the leaders were trying to avoid revealing some things from church history that were embarrassing or that revealed some very uncomfortable facts from church history.  I also believe that they avoided revealing some facts as long as they possibly could (with a few isolated articles here and there that contained some of the truth scattered throughout the past many years ). 

 

Members are now leaving over what they've discovered online and the leaders know it's time to be more honest or transparent.

 

I do understand why much of what is now being discussed was avoided in the past.  KevinG gives a good example as to why the leaders have done this (first part of his post).  But, the last few sentences of his post do not describe what members are doing when they learn the truth (blaming others for their "own shortcomings".).  Also lying to your kids about an event in your life is quite different from just not talking about it to them.

 

The information has been available long before the internets were invented. I can't help it if someone is too lazy to read a book.

[drums12]

I've felt similarly to you at times, HappyJackwagon, but I've also learned that a lot of leaders didn't know.  Think about this:   If you spent your entire life in Church service - bishop, stake president, etc., and then are called to full time service (many GAs were called at very young ages even up to 30-40 years ago), how much time do you think you would have had to read Church history in general, much less all the primary documents in the Church archives?  

 

Also,  I've come to realize that many of the details about Joseph's translation process, including the seer stone, were in such sources as the History of the Church, and Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph.  I agree these things should have been included more in correlated materials, but we can't change the past. Perhaps we should be just as forgiving of the Church (individual leaders and the institution collectively) as we hope others would be toward us.  

 

Lastly,  it's my impression that generations prior to my parents' (they are baby boomers) were much more aware of imperfections or things that seem weird to us now.  I remember my grandfather once talking about polygamists marrying teenagers. This was in 2004 or 2005 and I'd never heard anything like that.  I guarantee you that he, as a farmer in rural Idaho, wasn't spending much time reading Church history.

Edited August 10, 2015 by drums12

[rockpond]

Members do indeed blame others for their own inability to remain faithful to their covenants.  Not all - but some do.  I've seen it here and I've seen it in real life.  To build on my example:  My wife was abused (in a non-member home) but she never blamed her parents for her own difficulties in being a good parent.  And she is a damn good parent having taken the good they taught her, and rejected the bad, swearing that would never touch another generation.

 

If anyyone's expectation is that the Brethren should have been perfect in the telling of our history, warts and all.  And in publishing faith promoting history, along with more detailed history in materials for mature members (Institutes and histories) that nothing should be missed; at the same time they were trying to publish Sunday School materials that even the newest member could learn from, than their expectations are too cut and dry, too lofty, unrealistic.

 

If the argument is that they intentionally lied to people about our history that doesn't jive with what our own church historians have said about their level of knowledge of events, and the fact that history is not always clear from years out.

 

That's good... you covered all the points:

1. Blame the doubter.
2. The Brethren knew... they were just following a "milk before meat" model.
3. The Brethren didn't know because history is not always clear.

[Buckeye]

Human nature. Initially, it was because correlation thought the rock/hat was less faith promoting and so suppressed it. As time went on, fewer members knew the real story and there as little incentive to correct things. It was only when members began having other sources to turn to that correction was forced to bring this back to light. 

 

It's really not much different from how I act. I don't naturally bring up parts of my history that require an explanation unless there is a good reason to do so. For instance, in telling the founding narrative of my marriage - whether to my kids or to friends - I tend to focus and positive and happy aspects rather than the frustrations that made us question whether this was the right decision after all.

[bjw]

I think it's a case where imperfect, but well-meaning people did not want to jeopardize the growth of the church. However, in the long run it hurts the growth when people later learn the truth and leave. This is why I think they should always be honest, and maybe even have some classes on apologetics.

Also, admit the faults of church leaders while encouraging a testimony of the Gospel rather than people. I think its okay to show the faults of Joseph Smith in the church movie, maybe remake it to include things left out. I don't think Emma Smith should be held up as a role model for young women when she poisoned drinks, pushed a woman down stairs to cause a miscarriage, and call Mormonism a heresy that she would not raise her children in. I complained the year they used the Emma Smith book in some classes.

If people in the church's past did questionable things it is much better people get it from the church rather than it's enemies. It is the same reason you tell your children about the "birds and the bees" before movies or other kids have the chance, it is always better when the whole story is told to build trust, so it does not backfire later.

[KevinG]

 

That's good... you covered all the points:

1. Blame the doubter.
2. The Brethren knew... they were just following a "milk before meat" model.
3. The Brethren didn't know because history is not always clear.

 

 

You have a gift for being succinct.  But there is truth in what is stated here and evidence for it has been presented by leader and historian alike.

 

Just because you don't like the answer does not discount its accuracy.

 

If you want to posit that the brethren were intentionally misleading people because the church is false- then provide evidence not just scorn.

[rockpond]

You have a gift for being succinct.  But there is truth in what is stated here and evidence for it has been presented by leader and historian alike.

 

Just because you don't like the answer does not discount its accuracy.

 

If you want to posit that the brethren were intentionally misleading people because the church is false- then provide evidence not just scorn.

 

It wasn't scorn.  I just feel like you were throwing every rational up against the wall to see what sticks.  (And I'm really opposed to the "blame the doubter" mentality when doubts are reasonable.)

 

The consensus seems to be that the Brethren knew about how the Book of Mormon was really brought forth.  They, therefore, allowed a different and inaccurate narrative to be taught and presented to members and investigators.  It's a fair question to ask "why?".

[provoman]

I could accept that it was thought there was not a need. This is personal opinion. If the Spirit can confirm the true of the Gospel as taught by missionaries or however the person feels the Spirit, then why do some other things matter? The Spirit confirms the truth. Whether Jospeh Smith had many wives, his face was in a hat, or Brigham Young was a racist, does any of that negate the truth of the Gospel? So I could understand if past leadership of the Church did not think addressing certain things was needed. I could understand if current leadership saw a need due to the proliferation of information on the internet. The battle for hearts and minds remains the same, the tactics have adapted.

Edited August 10, 2015 by provoman

[ALarson]

 

This is not a good comparison at all. A more accurate one would be if you'd told your kids a version of something from your history that was a misrepresentation or a dishonest account. Then you say nothing as the years go by with them trusting you and believing your version. They then learn the facts and truth about what really happened and you blame them for trusting & believing you and for being lazy and for not figuring out the true sooner.

 

 

The information has been available long before the internets were invented. I can't help it if someone is too lazy to read a book.

Right on cue.  

Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson

[Danzo]

Human nature. Initially, it was because correlation thought the rock/hat was less faith promoting and so suppressed it. 

 

Who was this correlation guy?  

Did he write down that he thought it was less faith promoting?  

can you provide a reference to his statements on why he thought one version was more faith promoting than another?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Danzo

[KevinG]

It wasn't scorn.  I just feel like you were throwing every rational up against the wall to see what sticks.  (And I'm really opposed to the "blame the doubter" mentality when doubts are reasonable.)

 

The consensus seems to be that the Brethren knew about how the Book of Mormon was really brought forth.  They, therefore, allowed a different and inaccurate narrative to be taught and presented to members and investigators.  It's a fair question to ask "why?".

 

I was really describing my own experiences with Saints who oppose the church and blame the organization as an excuse.  Not all apostates are that way, but many not only buy, but turn and recycle the blame game when it comes to their own reasoning.  These are those who go beyond doubt and seek to blame others when the information was not handed to them in Sunday School.

 

On the other thread about our Historians comments he as much admitted to the brethren not having as good a grasp of the details of our history in the past as they do now.  

 

Prophets who were once doctors, lawyers and businessmen, are not historians by nature.  Their education in church history is not what got them leadership positions.  

 

That is a far cry from the caricature of a monolithic all knowing quorum who intentionally hide the deep dark secrets of their religion in order to retain gullible members.  (I have this image of the Apostles bringing new Apostles into the church vault and showing them Joseph's confession that the church is false, then swearing them to secrecy because it is better for the members not to know.  Tithing revenues and all that...)

 

At some point the individual member who has questions should inquire as an adult, not just the what, but the why.  Going in with the most negative interpretation or the most Pollyanna interpretation is likely to fail to grasp the reality of our own inheritance.

Edited August 10, 2015 by KevinG

[rockpond]

Whether Jospeh Smith had many wives, his face was in a hat, or Brigham Young was a racist, does any of that negate the truth of the Gospel?

 

No.  But not telling the truth can negate one's ability to be believed about other things they teach.

[KevinG]

Who was this correlation guy?  

Did he write down that he thought it was less faith promoting?  

can you provide a reference to his statements on why he thought one version was more faith promoting than another?

 

He could but the Danites would have to kill him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

CFR that they "purposely" promulgated a false narrative.

 

I think it is clear that a false narrative was promulgated. But I am not sure you can attach "purposely" to it.

[Danzo]

The information has been available long before the internets were invented. I can't help it if someone is too lazy to read a book.

 

Yeah, I have to keep reminding my kids that back when I was young, I had to actually read books to get information. I couldn't just type questions into google.  

People these days cringe in horror at the thought of having to read through an entire book to get information. It requires a superhuman attention span.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Danzo