Critics of the Church

[juliann]

This seems to be by Michael Quinn.  http://www.lds-mormon.com/mo2.shtml  It has a faith promoting aspect to it so it is probably before his troubles with the Church. However, I would bet my last dollar that although he may remove some of his faith affirmations, he would not change his assessment of the Tanners because he is a good scholar. (I find Quinn even now friendly toward the Church, BTW...even defending it a bit in a recent podcast.) 

This is an excerpt from an FM conference talk: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2000-fair-conference/2000-mormonism-shadow-or-reality-history-or-propaganda-joseph-smith-as-a-case-study    The Tanners can be given credit for unearthing documents, but when they use them to do stuff like this I just can't wrap my head around them being considered as credible. They may not be comparable to Decker in content, who I can only describe as having mental issues, but I think it fair to say that their methodology is the same. If one admires the Tanners, they should love the John Ankerbergs of the world as well.

TANNER VERSION		ORIGINAL QUOTATION
“Smith then came up andknocked him in the forehead with his flat hand-the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard-made him blind-that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness…” (Conflict at Kirtland, p. 132)		COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Saturday, June 20, [1835]   Joseph Smith, Jr., was put upon his trial on a charge of Assault and Battery commited [sic] upon the person of a Mr. [Calvin] Stoddard. By consent of the parties, the case was submitted to the Court without Jury. Stoddard examined–States that Smith had irritated him in a controversy about water–he had affirmed that there was water in a certain lot, which Smith denied–as Smith passed towards his house, he [Stoddard] followed him, and said, “ don’t fear you, or no other man”–Smith then came up and struck him in the forehead with his flat hand–the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard–made him blind–that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness–was satisfied–had forgiven him–would forgive any man who would injure him and ask his forgiveness. Cross ex.–Had a cane–did not attempt to strike him, or threaten. William Smith examined–Saw Stoddard come along cursing and swearing–Joseph went out–Stoddard said he would whip him, and drew his cane upon Joseph–Joseph struck him once or twice. Cross ex.–Joseph stopped in the yard–they were close together when he saw them–cautioned Joseph to stop, that he had done enough. Mr. [sic] Smith, the Prophet’s mother–Saw some of the affrey [sic] –was upstairs–heard Stoddard talking loud–calling Joseph ‘a d–d false prophet, and a d–d one thing another’–saw Joseph slap him–did not hear Stoddard say he would flog him–did not see Stoddard attempt to strike him. Burgess–Says Stoddard struck at Smith first, and raised his cane in a threatening attitude when down. The Court, after summing up the testimony, said that as the injured party was satisfied, there would be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense. The accused was then acquitted. Painesville Telegraph, New Series, I, No. 25 (June 26, 1835), n. p., cited in Max H. Parkin, Conflict At Kirtland, pp. 132-133.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe the church does that. General conference seems to be full of our leaders desperately trying to get us to live up to our privileges as people who are in a covenant relationship with Christ.

The age old story.  Joseph complained of the same thing.  We would much rather a God that makes us feel good about ourselves while we pick marigolds.  A God that requires us to be uncomfortable, let alone sacrifice absolutely everything even our lives,  just doesn't stay popular. 

Love that quote - we have set our gods very low.  I shall try to remember it.  We also set our gods too high, to far removed from us mere mortals.

Both are mistakes in my opinion.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

This seems to be by Michael Quinn.  http://www.lds-mormon.com/mo2.shtml  It has a faith promoting aspect to it so it is probably before his troubles with the Church. However, I would bet my last dollar that although he may remove some of his faith affirmations, he would not change his assessment of the Tanners because he is a good scholar. (I find Quinn even now friendly toward the Church, BTW...even defending it a bit in a recent podcast.) 

This is an excerpt from an FM conference talk: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2000-fair-conference/2000-mormonism-shadow-or-reality-history-or-propaganda-joseph-smith-as-a-case-study    The Tanners can be given credit for unearthing documents, but when they use them to do stuff like this I just can't wrap my head around them being considered as credible. They may not be comparable to Decker in content, who I can only describe as having mental issues, but I think it fair to say that their methodology is the same. If one admires the Tanners, they should love the John Ankerbergs of the world as well.

TANNER VERSION		ORIGINAL QUOTATION
“Smith then came up andknocked him in the forehead with his flat hand-the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard-made him blind-that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness…” (Conflict at Kirtland, p. 132)		COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Saturday, June 20, [1835]   Joseph Smith, Jr., was put upon his trial on a charge of Assault and Battery commited [sic] upon the person of a Mr. [Calvin] Stoddard. By consent of the parties, the case was submitted to the Court without Jury. Stoddard examined–States that Smith had irritated him in a controversy about water–he had affirmed that there was water in a certain lot, which Smith denied–as Smith passed towards his house, he [Stoddard] followed him, and said, “ don’t fear you, or no other man”–Smith then came up and struck him in the forehead with his flat hand–the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard–made him blind–that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness–was satisfied–had forgiven him–would forgive any man who would injure him and ask his forgiveness. Cross ex.–Had a cane–did not attempt to strike him, or threaten. William Smith examined–Saw Stoddard come along cursing and swearing–Joseph went out–Stoddard said he would whip him, and drew his cane upon Joseph–Joseph struck him once or twice. Cross ex.–Joseph stopped in the yard–they were close together when he saw them–cautioned Joseph to stop, that he had done enough. Mr. [sic] Smith, the Prophet’s mother–Saw some of the affrey [sic] –was upstairs–heard Stoddard talking loud–calling Joseph ‘a d–d false prophet, and a d–d one thing another’–saw Joseph slap him–did not hear Stoddard say he would flog him–did not see Stoddard attempt to strike him. Burgess–Says Stoddard struck at Smith first, and raised his cane in a threatening attitude when down. The Court, after summing up the testimony, said that as the injured party was satisfied, there would be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense. The accused was then acquitted. Painesville Telegraph, New Series, I, No. 25 (June 26, 1835), n. p., cited in Max H. Parkin, Conflict At Kirtland, pp. 132-133.

Thank you for finding that, Juliann.

I agree that type of decontextualized editing is improper.

Regardless of who does it.

Happy New Year!!!

[juliann]

And Happy New Year to you!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

To all but the most obtuse, it strongly suggests Church leadership thought it was authentic.

I think that's why they posed for the famous newspaper photo with Hofmann pointing toward the letter where it lay on a desk in the COB.

It suggests only that they thought it might be authentic but you might be too obtuse to understand that there is the possibility of being unsure about anything.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I suppose that depends on the 14-year old girl . . .

Yeah, you are just rambling now.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Ask her how rewarding it is to have your name memorialized on the losing side of 10th circuit case law that will be cited in perpetuity.   Her frivolous lawsuit will be her ultimate contribution. Everyone who uses the internet gained protection because of her.

If you are asking me if I think a mentally ill person would not be able to distinguish the difference between what is required in D&C 129 and a psychotic event, then my answer is they would not.

 

Whether or not I reject D&C 129 has nothing do do with what I am saying.

ouch ... I forgot about that

[Calm]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

About 1% of the American population (or 2.5 million people) are affected by this disease. So if I think an angel has appeared to me and is telling me to do something wrong, which is a greater likelihood, that it really is an angel or I am one of those 2.5 million people?

If you had absolutely no sign of the disease in any other way and no other symptoms ever developed, what do you think?

[sdc999]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Critics always throw this out when they think they are losing. So predictably dull.

No.   When someone says, "I think Joseph Smith was wrong", mormons jump up interrupting so fast and say, "NO HE WASN'T".    Wait,  I haven't even said what he was wrong about yet.  He has been sat so high up on a throne and all seem to gather around in awe while singing Praise to the Man.  

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Can you cite in the scriptures where an age limitation is established for how old someone needs to be before they can be married?   What law of God is broken when a 14 year old gets married? 

God did give us intelligence to make wise decisions.  But by your example, everything that is not specifically spelled out in the scriptures is fair game.  I could go on to cite many sophomoric examples but I hope you see the error of your statement. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, sdc999 said:

When someone says, "I think Joseph Smith was wrong", mormons jump up interrupting so fast and say, "NO HE WASN'T".    Wait,  I haven't even said what he was wrong about yet.  He has been sat so high up on a throne and all seem to gather around in awe while singing Praise to the Man.  

And the problem with that only exists if he was wrong.  I have yet to see any error in his teachings or doctrines.

[Storm Rider]

So after skimming the comments on seven pages the gist of the complaint is that no one is perfect including church leaders and the Tanners and anyone else you can think of.  The fact they are not perfect is irritating and causes many to lose hope.  Okay, what's next?  I mean, we have pretty much nailed down this imperfection thing and have beat it to death, yet it remains an issue.  People, all people, are not perfect.  In fact, they are weak, choose poorly, and remain sinners of one degree or another.  Okay, if this is true then what is the issue?  Oh, I remember, the church is not perfect, its leaders are human and they are sinners so you lose hope because they are not perfect.

Gads, just step off the merry-go round and accept the bloody fact that if you are going to criticize anyone else - yourself included - begin with they are not perfect and are very human.  Start there.........after that there is not much to whine about. 

[Sanpitch]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So after skimming the comments on seven pages the gist of the complaint is that no one is perfect including church leaders and the Tanners and anyone else you can think of.  The fact they are not perfect is irritating and causes many to lose hope.  Okay, what's next?  I mean, we have pretty much nailed down this imperfection thing and have beat it to death, yet it remains an issue.  People, all people, are not perfect.  In fact, they are weak, choose poorly, and remain sinners of one degree or another.  Okay, if this is true then what is the issue?  Oh, I remember, the church is not perfect, its leaders are human and they are sinners so you lose hope because they are not perfect.

Gads, just step off the merry-go round and accept the bloody fact that if you are going to criticize anyone else - yourself included - begin with they are not perfect and are very human.  Start there.........after that there is not much to whine about. 

That's the best post so far and exactly as I feel.  As I said before, you find what you're looking far.

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If you had absolutely no sign of the disease in any other way and no other symptoms ever developed, what do you think?

Hi Calm,

 

That is a short question that really requires a long answer.

The insidious nature of schizophrenia is such that it acts on a person in a way as to convince the patient that he is the one thinking rationally and everyone else just doesn't see things clearly. Delusions of grandeur coupled with paranoia are common and in many cases patients think that God is talking to them directly. I think one has to witness first hand someone else being affected by this disease in order to appreciate the magnitude of changes wrought in a patient and the extent to which those changes seem real to that person. Imagine if you will an adult child of yours, out of the blue, asking you if you really intend on killing him would you just get it over and be done with it? It's not like one can see a sign or two and say "ah haa this is the first sign of schizophrenia". After a series of events one begins to suspect that something more serious than depression or mild mania may be going on and the patient himself may have to endure several bad psychotic episodes before he also finally realizes something is really wrong. In some cases they never realize they are sick.  50% of schizophrenia patients are affected with  anosognosia so treatment is very difficult.

Given the numbers of people affected by the disease that means over a million people in the US with Schizophrenia think they are perfectly fine. Scary.

 

So while I am not an expert and would not be capable of diagnosing mental illness in a live patient let alone someone from the past, I do have first hand experience over the last couple of years watching a loved on go from perfectly normal to being diagnosed as  Schizoaffective Disorder.

During that time I have sat through numerous group support sessions comprised of both patients and family members listening to their stories, as well as taking a course from NAMI about mental illness. It is clear from sessions and classes, watching people describe their own experiences, how real their experiences were. One elderly lady described her 40ish year old son, a patient, bringing home two large rocks which he knew were the petrified brains of Adam and Eve and that he was responsible for their safe keeping. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Many times it took several meetings before you were able to tell who was attending as a patient and who was there as part of a support group. I once sat is a meeting where for about two hours a very well dressed and well spoken lady of about 35 laid out in very specific detail how for the past two years the local police, FBI and department of Justice were collecting dossiers on her covering ongoing property disputes she was having with several of her neighbors who lived near her house. In reality she was homeless, but she presented a very convincing case. Had I met her under any other circumstances, especially before I saw what my own loved one went (is going) through, I would have accepted completely what this girl said at face value.

 

So back to your question. ... Sure I would like to think that if all of a sudden I started seeing or hearing things that others did not, I would see it as a sign I might be in the first stages of mental illness, I would hope that if I was being asked by a being to commit an act that was immoral that my first consideration would be mental illness, not that God wanted me to do something I otherwise would consider wrong. I mean when you think about it, the vast majority of times someone claims God asked him to do something bad, the rest of the world sees an act by either an evil person of a mentally ill one or both. So the chances I happen to be like Abraham or Nephi being asked to kill someone by God, in my opinion, are minuscule compared to the chance I am just sick.

 

For a really interesting example from history of someone who obviously thought God was talking to him and would back him up when push came to shove, I recommend the story of Jan Matthys in the Munster Rebellion in the 16t century. Here was a guy who knew God was talking to him and put his life on the line for that belief with disastrous results. Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) gives a riveting podcast account of this event that is must listening. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-48-prophets-of-doom/

From my experiences with schizophrenia I believe that is what affected Jan Matthys. I am sure he believed he was not sick.

Hope that helps.

Edited January 1, 2016 by CA Steve

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So after skimming the comments on seven pages the gist of the complaint is that no one is perfect including church leaders and the Tanners and anyone else you can think of.  The fact they are not perfect is irritating and causes many to lose hope.  Okay, what's next?  I mean, we have pretty much nailed down this imperfection thing and have beat it to death, yet it remains an issue.  People, all people, are not perfect.  In fact, they are weak, choose poorly, and remain sinners of one degree or another.  Okay, if this is true then what is the issue?  Oh, I remember, the church is not perfect, its leaders are human and they are sinners so you lose hope because they are not perfect.

Gads, just step off the merry-go round and accept the bloody fact that if you are going to criticize anyone else - yourself included - begin with they are not perfect and are very human.  Start there.........after that there is not much to whine about. 

There seem to be some who want to put their trust in people and get upset when they find out people aren't perfect. But we aren't called to have faith in people.  We are called to have faith in Christ, who can help work many mighty miracles in our lives, even with imperfect people.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/31/2015 at 9:09 PM, salgare said:

Consig pointed that out earlier, so in restating Jerald saw it long before anyone in the Church and Sandra did.

 

oh and Merry Christmas and a Happy New year to you Brother Smith.

Not true.  LDS scholar Rhett S. James had already suggested forgery in his Oct 24, 1984, letter to Glen Rowe of the LDS Church Historian's office, and in a subsequent letter to Steven F. Christensen (who was murdered by Mark Hofmann).  Jerald first suspected Kerry R. Boren of forgery in 1985 (Mr. Boren and the White Salamander), even though his Salt Lake City Messenger first published the text of the Salamander Letter in Sept 1984.

 

Hope your 2016 is the best yet, salgare.

[Tacenda]

On 12/31/2015 at 4:29 PM, juliann said:

This seems to be by Michael Quinn.  http://www.lds-mormon.com/mo2.shtml  It has a faith promoting aspect to it so it is probably before his troubles with the Church. However, I would bet my last dollar that although he may remove some of his faith affirmations, he would not change his assessment of the Tanners because he is a good scholar. (I find Quinn even now friendly toward the Church, BTW...even defending it a bit in a recent podcast.) 

This is an excerpt from an FM conference talk: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2000-fair-conference/2000-mormonism-shadow-or-reality-history-or-propaganda-joseph-smith-as-a-case-study    The Tanners can be given credit for unearthing documents, but when they use them to do stuff like this I just can't wrap my head around them being considered as credible. They may not be comparable to Decker in content, who I can only describe as having mental issues, but I think it fair to say that their methodology is the same. If one admires the Tanners, they should love the John Ankerbergs of the world as well.

TANNER VERSION		ORIGINAL QUOTATION
“Smith then came up andknocked him in the forehead with his flat hand-the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard-made him blind-that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness…” (Conflict at Kirtland, p. 132)		COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Saturday, June 20, [1835]   Joseph Smith, Jr., was put upon his trial on a charge of Assault and Battery commited [sic] upon the person of a Mr. [Calvin] Stoddard. By consent of the parties, the case was submitted to the Court without Jury. Stoddard examined–States that Smith had irritated him in a controversy about water–he had affirmed that there was water in a certain lot, which Smith denied–as Smith passed towards his house, he [Stoddard] followed him, and said, “ don’t fear you, or no other man”–Smith then came up and struck him in the forehead with his flat hand–the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard–made him blind–that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness–was satisfied–had forgiven him–would forgive any man who would injure him and ask his forgiveness. Cross ex.–Had a cane–did not attempt to strike him, or threaten. William Smith examined–Saw Stoddard come along cursing and swearing–Joseph went out–Stoddard said he would whip him, and drew his cane upon Joseph–Joseph struck him once or twice. Cross ex.–Joseph stopped in the yard–they were close together when he saw them–cautioned Joseph to stop, that he had done enough. Mr. [sic] Smith, the Prophet’s mother–Saw some of the affrey [sic] –was upstairs–heard Stoddard talking loud–calling Joseph ‘a d–d false prophet, and a d–d one thing another’–saw Joseph slap him–did not hear Stoddard say he would flog him–did not see Stoddard attempt to strike him. Burgess–Says Stoddard struck at Smith first, and raised his cane in a threatening attitude when down. The Court, after summing up the testimony, said that as the injured party was satisfied, there would be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense. The accused was then acquitted. Painesville Telegraph, New Series, I, No. 25 (June 26, 1835), n. p., cited in Max H. Parkin, Conflict At Kirtland, pp. 132-133.

I heard Sandra say in an interview with John Dehlin, that it was Jerald that liked to underline everything.  

I think this guy from Fair Mormon makes a mountain out of a molehill, sometimes inserting his opinion rather than fact in his observations.  

Edited January 3, 2016 by Tacenda

[sjdawg]

On 12/31/2015 at 9:54 AM, The Nehor said:

They were the first to loudly declare it. They were not the first or the only ones to suspect a forgery and they certainly did not prove it. I am not sure what "credit" this earns them.

Who were the first ones to suspect forgeries?

[why me]

On 31.12.2015 at 2:05 AM, Tacenda said:

Critics don't cause the harm, usually they are easy to see through.  It's when the church history itself is anti Mormon.  FairMormon did as much to make me go "what!" then the anti sites.

I know some on here dislike Grant Palmer, but it doesn't seem that the apologists were able to say what was untrue in his "Mormonism Unveiled" book.  I believe he said they never showed him where it was false information.  Except for some of the places where Grant may have said upfront that it was a an opinion.  

 

The problem with critics is their interpretation of church history and not the facts. It is how they interpret facts. But this is the problem with history. Facts can have many interpretations depending on the perspective of the historian. For example, the US history that I studied in high school in the early 70's and the interpretation that I got about the facts would ot be repeated today. Same facts but a different interpretation would come.

It is the same with lds history. Now the lds church is coming out with their own interpretations of its history and they are doing a good job.

[why me]

One needs to feel a litte pity fort the tanners. They spent the greater portion of their mature lives immersed with the lds church. I saw no balance in their lives. I think that the lds church and their obessed notions of it were not healthy for them. Of course, this is just an opinion but I don't believe that someone should spend years in negativity about an organization or a person. Sometimes, a person just needs to realize that moving on is the best way to discover new interests.

Edited January 4, 2016 by why me

[Sanpitch]

3 hours ago, why me said:

The problem with critics is their interpretation of church history and not the facts. It is how they interpret facts. But this is the problem with history. Facts can have many interpretations depending on the perspective of the historian. For example, the US history that I studied in high school in the early 70's and the interpretation that I got about the facts would ot be repeated today. Same facts but a different interpretation would come.

It is the same with lds history. Now the lds church is coming out with their own interpretations of its history and they are doing a good job.

It sounds like to me you're saying when critics, Tanners specifically, interprets church history they get the wrong perspective but now the church is doing a good job of their own interpretations of it.  Tanners did get a lot of things right, probably more so than the Church claims in the past even if they did capitalize more than some people thought they ought to.  I think it all depends on what view point someone looks at it from.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, why me said:

One needs to feel a litte pity fort the tanners. They spent the greater portion of their mature lives immersed with the lds church. I saw no balance in their lives. I think that the lds church and their obessed notions of it were not healthy for them. Of course, this is just an opinion but I don't believe that someone should spend years in negativity about an organization or a person. Sometimes, a person just needs to realize that moving on is the best way to discover new interests.

Well, when they see certain things taught that aren't always the real history, that can seem like fraud to them.  When the church asks for 10% of members earnings, wouldn't you want them to know the real history and not the whitewashed or faith promoting history?  I don't want this to come off crass, but just listened to a podcast about the problem of securities fraud or pyramid schemes that are in Utah.  It's big here.  Maybe they think the members need the truth before handing over their money. Now the church is doing a much better job, I'm glad to say.  

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, when they see certain things taught that aren't always the real history, that can seem like fraud to them.  When the church asks for 10% of members earnings, wouldn't you want them to know the real history and not the whitewashed or faith promoting history?  I don't want this to come off crass, but just listened to a podcast about the problem of securities fraud or pyramid schemes that are in Utah.  It's big here.  Maybe they think the members need the truth before handing over their money. Now the church is doing a much better job, I'm glad to say.  

If i believed that paying tithing was a required donation to the church instead of a commandment by God, I would completely agree with you.  

[why me]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, when they see certain things taught that aren't always the real history, that can seem like fraud to them.  When the church asks for 10% of members earnings, wouldn't you want them to know the real history and not the whitewashed or faith promoting history?  I don't want this to come off crass, but just listened to a podcast about the problem of securities fraud or pyramid schemes that are in Utah.  It's big here.  Maybe they think the members need the truth before handing over their money. Now the church is doing a much better job, I'm glad to say.  

And yet, to spend one's life obsessed with mormons and mormon affairs seems a waste to me and no more than an obsessions. One has died and the other will die too. And what will be left of their legacy? Not much. They will be forgotten by the critic crowd and the tanners impact will remain nil. One should find one's life doing constructive things and not obsessed with negativity about one particular organization.

Now for history. I just bought a lds history book written in 1995 by two church members. It is rather thick. Reading it, I learned of joseph's polygamy, the problems he experienced with it and the reactions of the members when they were told about it. There were many things in that book published by deseret. But was it complete. No. But the book did contain 500 or so pages. Members could have read such a book. I have said it many times. It is not up to the lds church to write its official history. It is up to scholars to do so or historians. If I search the vatican site, I will not find the catholic church publishing a catholic history book. The same holds church for all churches. Churches are not into writing their histories. They let scholars do so.

Edited January 5, 2016 by why me

[why me]

22 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

It sounds like to me you're saying when critics, Tanners specifically, interprets church history they get the wrong perspective but now the church is doing a good job of their own interpretations of it.  Tanners did get a lot of things right, probably more so than the Church claims in the past even if they did capitalize more than some people thought they ought to.  I think it all depends on what view point someone looks at it from.

I don't believe that the tanners were historians. However, history is made up of interpretations of facts. The critics were masters at interpreting church history in a negative way. They offered the facts and gave their interpretations of aspects of it. However, as I just pointed out to tacenda, if members would have read church history books publsihed by deseret, they would have learned much. Especially by reading the biography of hyrum smith by O'driscoll.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

And here is a review of the book:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/7151/6800

The fact seems to be that members do not read books about mormon history written by faithful members who have scholars etc.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:34 AM, JLHPROF said:

And the problem with that only exists if he was wrong.  I have yet to see any error in his teachings or doctrines.

Not even where they contradict?