The First Vision and "Hiding History"

[smac97]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

And yet this board is populated with all sorts of people who are very well-educated about the Church's history and doctrines and practices.

So either the Church's obfuscatory efforts have not been very successful, or they never really existed.

Disagree.  I think the Church's efforts to ensure that anything outside the story they want to tell stays away have been wildly successful.d

First, the existence of these "efforts" is not self-evident.  At all.

Second, I have a hard time squaring this claim of a sinister, let's-keep-'em-in-the-dark conspiracy by the leaders of the Church ("efforts to ensure that anything outside the story they want to tell stays away") with the constant encouragement of the Saints to study the Restored Gospel, including the "best books" referenced in the D&C, and being constantly published by Deseret Book and many other publishing houses.  

Finally, if the Saints are "in the dark," it's a self-imposed sort of thing.  There is no shortage of material about the doctrines and history of the Church.  

Quote

Pick up a Church manual from the 20th century.  

Church manuals were never intended to be the sole source of information about the Church's history, doctrines, practices, etc.  They are instead intended to facilitate instruction during the three-hour block, with the proviso that members are supposed to be going well above and beyond that time slot when it comes to studying the Restored Gospel.

Quote

Counselor, the evidence is in the incorrect beliefs of those members who failed to do as recommended above.  

Well, no.  The evidence is in the instruction "to do as recommended above," not in the Saints' failure to follow those recommendations.

Your critique doesn't even make sense.  On the one hand, you assert that the Church has sought to keep the Saints in the dark ("obfuscate"), but here you are pointing to "members who failed to do as recommended above {namely, study the Restored Gospel}."  

So which is it?  Is the Church encouraging its members to study the Gospel on their own, or not?

Quote

Those incorrect beliefs did not appear in a vacuum, nor have they been removed from the Church.

The Church has, by and large, worked hard to keep the teachings of the Church "pure."  Ironically, it has succeeded by, in large part, the efforts to "correlate" the Church's official manuals and materials, which is another gripe the critics crank out on a regular basis.

Anyway, the members of the Church have (and, to some extent, still do) harbor some incorrect notions about the Gospel.  And some of those notions were formally propagated by General Authorities (think of some of Bruce R. McConkie's teachings about the Priesthood Ban).  But I think those are becoming fewer and farther between.  Consider, for example, why critics so heavily source their complaints to General Authorities long dead, and pay little attention to statements by current General Authorities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2017 by smac97

[theplains]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

I should probably post this on the ex-Mormon forums, because this means that when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church.  They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

I'm not LDS, but I would guess that many Latter-day Saints would view some teachings in the 5 volume set of
Doctrines of Salvation as false and deceptive if believed.  It's no wonder why the LDS Church has even de-
emphasized other teachings in the newer versions of Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith and
Gospel Principles.  One could view this as trying to hide church history.  For example, in the new version of Gospel
Principles, they completely omit any mention of the 1997 copyright.  It just mentions 1978 and 2009.  Sneaky
because much has been changed and omitting that dated version leaves a newcomer without a clue of its existence.
The 1997 version mentions copyrights of 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, but I am only able
to find and acquire the 1978 version in paper form and the 1997 version in pdf form.

Jim

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pretty much, yes.

I find a seerstone process no stranger than a Joseph-tracing-each-character-on-the-plates-and-translating-them-through-divine-guidance process.  The translation process was, either way, beyond the abilities of Joseph Smith and required guidance from God.

Well, not quite.  My kids all know that Joseph was a polygamist, and that their ages ranged from 50+ down to the teens.

Strange how nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess.

I don't teach my children about important and sensitive topics using a lurid, let's-see-how-much-I-can-shock-and-disturb-them approach which appears to be favored by some.  I try to provide context (historical, cultural, doctrinal, etc.).  I go with the best information we have.  I try to explain my personal thoughts, including that it's okay to feel some discomfort at practices with which we are not acclimated (my children have also expressed some reservations about the biblical practice of animal sacrifice, but they seem to be able to accommodate it).

Yes.  That's what the Church has long taught.  We should not rely on the three-hour block and seminary/institute as the sole sources of information about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We should also actively and consistently study the Gospel on our own.

Whitewashed: "anything, as deceptive words or actions, used to cover up or gloss over faults, errors, or wrongdoings, or absolve a wrongdoer from blame."

Again with the lurid, sneering approach.

The leaders of the Church really do believe in the teachings of the Church.  It's not a front.  It's not smoke and mirrors.  There is a lot of sincerity going on.  So when it comes to the Church using the very limited time it has to provide the Saints with formal instruction (essentially, about 90 minutes or less on most Sundays), it goes with the broad strokes and general precepts.  There isn't really time for, say, a detailed analysis of Pat Bagley's famously fraudulent "grain allies" interpolation, or discussing "Does Facsimile 1 show fingers or wings?", or "Did Joseph screw up in the Fifth Lecture on Faith re: God having a body?"  Instead, the Church goes with the important, foundational stuff, and the stuff that the Saints really need to improve on (geneology, tithing, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, treating family members with kindness, etc.).  Beyond that, the Saints are encouraged - rather consistently - to study the Gospel on their own.  This would be a rather odd instruction from a church bent on "whitewashing" its history.  

Further, I have a hard time reconciling a charge of "whitewashing" with the Church's Gospel Topics Essays:

• Are Mormons Christian?
• Becoming Like God
• Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Book of Mormon Translation
• First Vision Accounts
• Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women
• Mother in Heaven
• Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints
• Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Race and the Priesthood
• Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

These are thorny, difficult issues.  For example, the Church's essay on polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo specifically references Helen Mar Kimball as being the youngest of Joseph's wives, and that she was 14 ("several months before her 15th birthday").

Which is precisely what the Church teaches.

And is precisely the point being contested in this thread.  Some folks seem to think that the Church wants its members to limit their inquiries about the Restored Gospel to the three-hour block.  That's imply not the case.

Unless, of course, they are affirmatively encouraged to study the Gospel on their own.  That would be, I think, "a reason to read outside books."

And yet . . . they are also taught to do more than that, and to study the Gospel on their own.

That's understandable.  Unfortunate, but understandable.  As it is, though, I think LDS kids are becoming more interested in studying the Gospel, since they are running into controversial stuff online all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

With the attitude you have, I doubt very much that you will have children surprised by these issues.  Good for you.  Not sure how common that approach has been, especially in the past.

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's not only children that may be getting an incorrect history, but adults as well. The "Teachings of the Presidents" on Brigham Young, takes out wives and puts wife. Also, in another history account, Joseph Smith in his own writing says he is having a beer at Moesser's, church has deleted it. There are several instances of the church portraying something different than the original. 

Hiding information or altering the past, does happen. It sure makes for some digging when one finds things out. I was and still am addicted to finding out the real church history. I am embarrassed to say I had books inherited from my mom that sat on my shelf. Also had the book Cinepro mentioned on it that I never cracked open, don't even know where it came from and it was "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". I even sent it along with many other old books to the D.I. w/o knowing what was in them. 

Clearly there are issues.  To pretend there is not does not make the issues go away.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

And yet...the reason so many of us never knew....was because we trusted our parents....our primary teachers...

You mean the same parents and primary teachers who ostensibly should have been teaching kids to study the Gospel on their own (which is what the General Authorities have been saying for . . . quite some time now)?

I can see how it could be a hard thing to confront one's own failure to devote much time to studying the Gospel as counseled by the leaders of the Church.  I can also see why such a person might want to deflect ownership of that failure by blaming parents, primary teachers, and so on.  

But perhaps there really isn't a need to allocate blame.  Perhaps we should instead focus on where we can/should go from here.  If there have been mistakes made (by the individual, by the individual's parents/teachers, by the Church, whatever), then perhaps we could just acknowledge those briefly, forgive others, forgive ourselves, and get back to studying the Gospel.

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

why search for more when we knew or thought we knew all the right answers. 

Well, because we have never been told that we have "all the {} answers," just that what we have is the "most correct."

We have also been told, many times, to "search for more" by continued personalized study.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The point, I think, should be that we should be constantly studying the Gospel.  Studying it by reading and pondering and praying about it, and also living in accordance with it. This is the best way to come to understand the gospel.

...

In contrast, someone who continuously studies and ponders and increases their familiarity with the church and its history and practices and doctrines will be inoculated against these sorts of disruptive events.

What you have written above is absolutely correct, but I'm reminded that many Saints don't have all of the same opportunities that probably all who post on this forum do.

My second-last branch was independent of any stake or district. The mission office that oversaw it was more than 2,000 kilometres away. Our chapel was a simple wooden structure, raised on two-metre stilts and devoid of either electricity or running water. Our first full-time missionaries were assigned to the branch the week before I left. Before that, I (there as part of my postgraduate program) and another brother in the branch (who had moved there just three months before me for work), were the only two who had ever seen a session of General Conference or served missions, and he had done the latter without ever having been endowed.

Collectively, our little branch possessed the four Standard Works, hymn books, the two Handbooks, and some lesson manuals. That was it. Any member who wished to study history or practices or doctrines would have been limited to these.

But they knew what they had forwards and backwards, especially the youth. We only had one Sunday school class for everyone not in primary, and these kids could quote scriptures from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants on any topic. It was obvious that they had devoted themselves to a thorough study of everything they possessed and were filled with a hunger for anything more that came their way. I had a half-dozen copies of the Liahona with me when I arrived, and I left them all with the branch to add to their small library. Every issue had been devoured before my departure.

But they also had something else to 'inoculate' them. You mention it in your first point above: 'living in accordance with it'. In talks, lessons and testimonies, reference was certainly made to what they had read and studied, but the emphasis was always on what they had experienced. Private conversations in their homes were the same. For these good brothers and sisters, studying was a practical step that led directly to applying. And they knew that what they had experienced was real because, well, they'd experienced it. Repeatedly and with great power.

I genuinely don't believe that there is anything on planet earth that they could have read that would have created a 'disruptive event' for them. They would have laughed and said, 'Well, that's something someone else said about what happened long ago, and how can anyone really know much about that? What I do know is what I've seen for myself', followed by many hours, if one had the time, of personal experience sharing.

I felt right at home in that little branch because, despite working on a master's degree in history at the time -- and having read and studied much in the intervening time -- I feel the same way. Living my life in accordance with what I have learnt as a member of the Church has brought me everything I need to know and, if necessary, would be enough to compensate for zero access to any text, past or present. The Lord in His wisdom makes sure that every Saint regardless of circumstances can know enough.

This is not to say that I haven't been blessed immensely -- I have! -- by what I've studied. I'm endlessly grateful for that opportunity and wish all had equal access. But I also know that, in the end, every Saint has access to enough.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have said before, the information has always been available, just not at Church.
So where does that leave responsibility to acquire the information?  

Is the Church responsible to teach a full honest account of things that relate to their history and the gospel?  Yes.
Does that mean super detailed?  No, but accurate, especially when it relates to the gospel topic.

Is the member responsible to read things outside of the Church curriculum?  Yes.
Does that mean reading anti rubbish?  Not at all.  Plenty of church published and authorized doctrine that goes unread.

This back and forth seems to never settle.  "The Church hid it".  "You never studied the available materials".  "I was lied to".  "Nobody lied."

If we are truly honest we would admit that the Church has taught whitewashed history in its manuals and lessons for many decades.
And we would admit that most members are shocked when they come across things because they are too lazy to pick up a book.

I agree but lean towards the Church being responsible to teach history accurately but siding towards being inspirational. It leaving out of its lessons Joseph Smith being a polygamist may have been be to simply not wanting to debate it in a church setting; siding instead to focus on his inspirations to found and guide the Church. This worked for a long time while I grew up though frankly I often heard about Joseph Smirh marrying more than one wife both in church and outside of church. Besides a personal testimony that he was a true prophet of God, the inspirational stories I constantly heard about him helped me a lot to speak about him when the topic of polygamy was brought up. 

I thank the Church for that but realize we live in a time when people demand historical accuracy to the point of using it as a rubric to judge one’s integrity; including the Church’s integrity. I find the Church adapting to that social change and I hope that with these adaptations, including infusing the topic of polygamy into its official lesson manuals, that it’ll remain on the side of being inspirational. 

[Duncan]

Something that gets me is when people all of a sudden become interested in History or theology and think that after reading one article or a book think they some big expert now. Learning history or anything is a lifelong pursuit and nobody knows everything but some people think they do.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure 'stupid' is the best appellation. 'Ignorant' might be a better one and there is some blame in choosing ignorance. But yes, those who defect from the faith as a teen or an adult who have a Primary level understanding of the Gospel often leave for Primary level exmo reasons/justifications when they defect. Then again, in my experience, most of those who leave for infantile reasons tend to be using them as an excuse for why they left. I still believe more people leave the Church because they want to sleep in on Sunday morning or get a 10% raise then do because of polygamy, multiple First Vision accounts, or the Priesthood Ban.

I do not see this as a huge problem in the church. Many are not willing to dig through old accounts of Kirtland and Nauvoo to get a more complete picture of life there or to dig up old quotes about obscure doctrine. Such study takes time many just are unable or unwilling to commit. I can tell you that if I were a conventional LDS guy and had gotten married in my 20s and had four or five children now I would not know nearly as much about church history as I do now. Hell, I would not know as much about science, history, literature, and politics as I do now. I would not have the time to laze away several evenings every week with a book or on the web. If I did I would probably be shirking more important responsibilities to do so. As useful as a doctoral level understanding of the gospel is it is not a prerequisite for living a Christ-centered life or achieving exaltation. Many people's lives do take that kind path but we are off the general path of salvation and are into specific individual ones.

But some people's complaints do fall flat. I was reading a book about dinosaurs to my niece a couple of weeks ago and she asked what dinosaurs ate because she saw some eating plants and thought all of them ate other animals. I said some ate meat and some ate plants. She got a little huffy in the way young kids do and said: "No one ever told me that!" As if it is was someone's job to tell her about dinosaurs and her not knowing was the fault of someone else. Many who blame the church are (ostensibly) grown up versions of my niece. At some point you have to take some responsibility on yourself for learning how things work and seeking out the information you need or want on your own.

In the age of the internet the excuse grows more pathetic.

This thread reminds me of a song.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And yet...the reason so many of us never knew....was because we trusted our parents....our primary teachers...why search for more when we knew or thought we knew all the right answers. 

If you think you know it all then the scripture is fulfilled and pride goeth before the fall.

The Lord commands us to search the scriptures and to be ever searching for truth from the best sources we can find. It is in the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and fills our General Conference talks.

I admit I am a bit gobsmacked by the idea that you thought your primary teachers knew it all. Even if they did could they convey it completely to a bunch of rambunctious children.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I'm not LDS, but I would guess that many Latter-day Saints would view some teachings in the 5 volume set of
Doctrines of Salvation as false and deceptive if believed.  It's no wonder why the LDS Church has even de-
emphasized other teachings in the newer versions of Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith and
Gospel Principles.  One could view this as trying to hide church history.  For example, in the new version of Gospel
Principles, they completely omit any mention of the 1997 copyright.  It just mentions 1978 and 2009.  Sneaky
because much has been changed and omitting that dated version leaves a newcomer without a clue of its existence.
The 1997 version mentions copyrights of 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, but I am only able
to find and acquire the 1978 version in paper form and the 1997 version in pdf form.

Jim

You win the crazy conspiracy of the day award.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Something that gets me is when people all of a sudden become interested in History or theology and think that after reading one article or a book think they some big expert now. Learning history or anything is a lifelong pursuit and nobody knows everything but some people think they do.

The wisest gospel teacher I have known gave me some sage advice:

"Never teach at the edge of your knowledge."

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

As much angst as there is over less than 200 years of LDS church history, imagine the fun a Catholic has perusing 2000 years of

shock and awe.

There is some truth to this, but I think there are some differences between the LDS situation and the Catholic one. For example, we easily acknowledge that there have been terrible popes and bishops and on and on. A bad pope doesn't threaten the truth claims of our Church like a bad president would yours. I think there is a need for Mormons to see their leaders as above reproach because that strengthens the truth claims. This is especially true because of the need for an apostasy and, in my experience, the evidence for an apostasy that Mormons often use is the bad behavior of Catholic leaders.

It is an official dogma for us, too, as settled by an ecumenical council, that the sinfulness of a priest or bishop (the pope is a bishop) does not negate their priesthood or authority to act in God's name. Thus, bad behavior would not lead to an apostasy. My point is not to argue whether or not that is true, but to show how it lessens any angst we might have about bad leaders, especially in contrast with the LDS church.

Also, our Sunday services are not centered around instruction, like yours are. In my limited experience at LDS church, all but probably 25 minutes of the 3 hours was focused on teaching through talks and classes. That makes it more of an issue when someone feels like something has been left out, in contrast to Catholic Mass, where the homily is 10-15 minutes and isn't intended to teach history or anything like that, but is instead to help us better understand the ideas in the Biblical readings we have heard.

Finally, Catholic history is quite easy to find. Go to any university and take a class on European history  Does BYU require classes on the history of the LDS church? If so, are they taught from a religious point-of-view or a secular one?

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure 'stupid' is the best appellation. 'Ignorant' might be a better one and there is some blame in choosing ignorance. But yes, those who defect from the faith as a teen or an adult who have a Primary level understanding of the Gospel often leave for Primary level exmo reasons/justifications when they defect. Then again, in my experience, most of those who leave for infantile reasons tend to be using them as an excuse for why they left. I still believe more people leave the Church because they want to sleep in on Sunday morning or get a 10% raise then do because of polygamy, multiple First Vision accounts, or the Priesthood Ban.

I do not see this as a huge problem in the church. Many are not willing to dig through old accounts of Kirtland and Nauvoo to get a more complete picture of life there or to dig up old quotes about obscure doctrine. Such study takes time many just are unable or unwilling to commit. I can tell you that if I were a conventional LDS guy and had gotten married in my 20s and had four or five children now I would not know nearly as much about church history as I do now. Hell, I would not know as much about science, history, literature, and politics as I do now. I would not have the time to laze away several evenings every week with a book or on the web. If I did I would probably be shirking more important responsibilities to do so. As useful as a doctoral level understanding of the gospel is it is not a prerequisite for living a Christ-centered life or achieving exaltation. Many people's lives do take that kind path but we are off the general path of salvation and are into specific individual ones.

But some people's complaints do fall flat. I was reading a book about dinosaurs to my niece a couple of weeks ago and she asked what dinosaurs ate because she saw some eating plants and thought all of them ate other animals. I said some ate meat and some ate plants. She got a little huffy in the way young kids do and said: "No one ever told me that!" As if it is was someone's job to tell her about dinosaurs and her not knowing was the fault of someone else. Many who blame the church are (ostensibly) grown up versions of my niece. At some point you have to take some responsibility on yourself for learning how things work and seeking out the information you need or want on your own.

In the age of the internet the excuse grows more pathetic.

“I can tell you that if I were a conventional LDS guy and had gotten married in my 20s and had four or five children now I would not know nearly as much about church history as I do now.”

It is scientifically proven that marriage and children excelerate brain cell deterioration.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There is some truth to this, but I think there are some differences that appear to me to make the situation different. For example, we easily acknowledge that there have been terrible popes and bishops and on and on. A bad pope doesn't threaten the truth claims of our Church like a bad president would yours. I think there is a need for Mormons to see their leaders as above reproach because that strengthens the truth claims. This is especially true because of the need for an apostasy and, in my experience, the evidence for an apostasy that Mormons often use is the bad behavior of Catholic leaders.

It is an official dogma for us, too, as settled by an ecumenical council, that the sinfulness of a priest or bishop (the pope is a bishop) does not negate their priesthood or authority to act in God's name. Thus, bad behavior would not lead to an apostasy. My point is not to argue whether or not that is true, but to show how it lessens any angst we might have about bad leaders, especially in contrast with the LDS church.

Also, our Sunday services are not centered around instruction, like yours are. In my limited experience at LDS church, all but probably 25 minutes of the 3 hours was focused on teaching through talks and classes. That makes it more of an issue when someone feels like something has been left out, in contrast to Catholic Mass, where the homily is 10-15 minutes and isn't intended to teach history or anything like that, but is instead to help us better understand the ideas in the Biblical readings we have heard.

Finally, Catholic history is quite easy to find. Go to any university and take a class on European history  Does BYU require classes on the history of the LDS church? If so, are they taught from a religious point-of-view or a secular one?

 

BYU did not require church history beyond Doctrine and Covenants when I was there. Full blown church history classes I’m sure provide lots of information. I got lots of it when I took History of Utah to fulfill a history requirement. Furthermore, there are those who become church historians, I’ve no doubt those classes fpt9 be one such are laden with historical info for its students. 

And doesn't a Catholic chapel have its history depicted on its windows?

Edited November 22, 2017 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

There is some truth to this, but I think there are some differences between the LDS situation and the Catholic one. For example, we easily acknowledge that there have been terrible popes and bishops and on and on. A bad pope doesn't threaten the truth claims of our Church like a bad president would yours. I think there is a need for Mormons to see their leaders as above reproach because that strengthens the truth claims. This is especially true because of the need for an apostasy and, in my experience, the evidence for an apostasy that Mormons often use is the bad behavior of Catholic leaders.

It is an official dogma for us, too, as settled by an ecumenical council, that the sinfulness of a priest or bishop (the pope is a bishop) does not negate their priesthood or authority to act in God's name. Thus, bad behavior would not lead to an apostasy. My point is not to argue whether or not that is true, but to show how it lessens any angst we might have about bad leaders, especially in contrast with the LDS church.

Also, our Sunday services are not centered around instruction, like yours are. In my limited experience at LDS church, all but probably 25 minutes of the 3 hours was focused on teaching through talks and classes. That makes it more of an issue when someone feels like something has been left out, in contrast to Catholic Mass, where the homily is 10-15 minutes and isn't intended to teach history or anything like that, but is instead to help us better understand the ideas in the Biblical readings we have heard.

Finally, Catholic history is quite easy to find. Go to any university and take a class on European history  Does BYU require classes on the history of the LDS church? If so, are they taught from a religious point-of-view or a secular one?

 

Our church instruction is not teaching history either but some people think it is for some reason. We use a lot of anecdotes and stories but they are used to illustrate a principle or doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I agree but lean towards the Church being responsible to teach history accurately but siding towards being inspirational. It leaving out of its lessons Joseph Smith being a polygamist may have been be to simply not wanting to debate it in a church setting; siding instead to focus on his inspirations to found and guide the Church. This worked for a long time while I grew up though frankly I often heard about Joseph Smirh marrying more than one wife both in church and outside of church. Besides a personal testimony that he was a true prophet of God, the inspirational stories I constantly heard about him helped me a lot to speak about him when the topic of polygamy was brought up. 

I thank the Church for that but realize we live in a time when people demand historical accuracy to the point of using it as a rubric to judge one’s integrity; including the Church’s integrity. I find the Church adapting to that social change and I hope that with these adaptations, including infusing the topic of polygamy into its official lesson manuals, that it’ll remain on the side of being inspirational. 

And the reason for not teaching about his polygamy when studying D&C 132?  Pretty sure that was the reason that section was given.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

........................................ when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church.  They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

You may be a bit harsh here, cinepro.  After all, there doesn't seem to me to be much difference in actual knowledge between those ex-Mormons and the average Mormons who have remained with the faith.  The difference seems more likely to be found in their willingness to depend on the Holy Spirit, or not.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

The church archives, the first presidency vault, etc had limited access for a reason. E. Packer encouraged one sided "faithful" history for a reason. President Hinckley encouraged donations to the church of journals of our grandparents and greatgrandparents for a reason. People were excommunicated for telling "unfaithful history" or speculative doctrine for a reason. Members were and are continually encouraged to only read church approved materials for a reason. And the reason is .....

[carbon dioxide]

Here is my two cents.

Yes the Church is guilty of 'hiding history".  I don't know the reasons for it.  I could offer guesses but I don't know for sure.  Most of the time the history they are "hiding" in my opinion is not a big deal.   As they say sometimes, the coverup of the crime was worse than the crime.  None of this matters however.  Even if the Church did not hide anything, the church would still be called guilty of hiding history  because the Church will not and cannot teach all this stuff in church for one simple reason.  There is not time.   If the Church was to cover history and doctrines in a lot of detail, it would have to increase our Sunday meeting to probably 5 hours instead of 3.  Perhaps even longer than 5 hours.   Members are not wanting more hours but less hours.  Who wants in to increase their Sundays at church to 5 hours?  Raise your hands please.

So there is no way the Church can win this because most members are too lazy to do the required study at home.  In reality, the bulk of the teachings of the gospel should be occurring in our homes.  The Church should provide the members the most comprehensive and accurate history that it possibly can and that included all controversial issues but still in the end will the members do the study to learn it?  In most cases probably not.   People will keep blaming the Church for hiding things when it is not the Church that is at fault for members not knowing but the decision of members not being responsible for themselves and doing what they have an obligation to do on their own time. 

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And the reason for not teaching about his polygamy when studying D&C 132?  Pretty sure that was the reason that section was given.

I was talking about growing up. A typical Sunday School lesson on Joseph Smith did not include the topic of polygamy. And, as mentioned, the issue of polygamy was brought up many times in church as I grew up. 

To note also, I find D&C 132 to have been given given in order to establish the eternal importance of marriage, not polygamy. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Darren10

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What you have written above is absolutely correct, but I'm reminded that many Saints don't have all of the same opportunities that probably all who post on this forum do.

Probably so.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My second-last branch was independent of any stake or district. The mission office that oversaw it was more than 2,000 kilometres away. Our chapel was a simple wooden structure, raised on two-metre stilts and devoid of either electricity or running water. Our first full-time missionaries were assigned to the branch the week before I left. Before that, I (there as part of my postgraduate program) and another brother in the branch (who had moved there just three months before me for work), were the only two who had ever seen a session of General Conference or served missions, and he had done the latter without ever having been endowed.

Collectively, our little branch possessed the four Standard Works, hymn books, the two Handbooks, and some lesson manuals. That was it. Any member who wished to study history or practices or doctrines would have been limited to these.

Hmm.  I can see constraints on printed materials, and also constraints based on language (I have access to materials in English that are not available in other languages).

Still, the Church has gone to great lengths to have its manuals and materials printed in various languages.  And the Church's website has quite a bit of content in many different languages.  It seems like most of the world has access to the Internet in some sense.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But they knew what they had forwards and backwards, especially the youth. We only had one Sunday school class for everyone not in primary, and these kids could quote scriptures from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants on any topic. It was obvious that they had devoted themselves to a thorough study of everything they possessed and were filled with a hunger for anything more that came their way. I had a half-dozen copies of the Liahona with me when I arrived, and I left them all with the branch to add to their small library. Every issue had been devoured before my departure.

That is wonderful to hear.  I wonder sometimes if we who have access to huge amounts of material about the Church spend less time studying because of it.  It's pretty much the Law of Supply and Demand.  We have access to huge amounts of materials about the Church and its history, doctrines, practices, etc.  The "supply" is vast, so the "demand" (that is, members actually reading this stuff) can, at least for the individual, go down.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But they also had something else to 'inoculate' them. You mention it in your first point above: 'living in accordance with it'. In talks, lessons and testimonies, reference was certainly made to what they had read and studied, but the emphasis was always on what they had experienced. Private conversations in their homes were the same. For these good brothers and sisters, studying was a practical step that led directly to applying. And they knew that what they had experienced was real because, well, they'd experienced it. Repeatedly and with great power.

Yep.  I can't help but wonder that much of the angst that some members feel about the Gospel is augmented by a bit too much stewing and not nearly enough doing.

It seems that those who are most happy with the Gospel are those who focus on living it as much as on studying and feeling it.  I am reminded here of Matthew 23:23:

Quote

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

We need to study the Restored Gospel, certainly.  But more importantly, we need to live according to it.  The Pharisees became preoccupied with formalized observances of the Mosaic Law, to the exclusion of its "weightier matters."  We can become preoccupied with studying the Restored Gospel (including, it seems, focusing on controversial/speculative issues, and on the flaws of past and present leaders), to the exclusion of living according to its "weightier matters."

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I genuinely don't believe that there is anything on planet earth that they could have read that would have created a 'disruptive event' for them. They would have laughed and said, 'Well, that's something someone else said about what happened long ago, and how can anyone really know much about that? What I do know is what I've seen for myself', followed by many hours, if one had the time, of personal experience sharing.

Well, good for them.  To an extent.  However, it's hard to unring the bell.  Many Latter-day Saints go online and encounter endless attacks on their faith.  I think it's understandable that they would become distressed by this neverending phenomenon, and would eventually (hopefully) seek out ways to address these things.

My wife is a wonderful and intelligent person.  She has a very strong testimony, in many ways like what you describe above.  Lately, however, she has taken an increased interest in understanding the controversial issues I sometimes bring up when discussing the Gospel with our children.  She recently confided that she had previously been a bit disconcerted at this tendency of mine, but that in retrospect she is grateful I have been doing it because of its "innoculating" effect on our kids. 

For example, I have a son who is presently serving in the MTC's Referral Center (health issues have prevented him from serving a proselytizing mission).  He spends all day text chatting with people from all over the world (he is one of the missionaries who responds to text chatters on Mormon.org).  He also ends up chatting with lots of people who have met with the proselytizing missionaries, and who then go to Mormon.org with further questions and inquiries (because the missionaries have left, or because the missionaries did not know the answers, etc.).  He has mentioned several times how our family discussions about the Church's doctrine and history and practice, including treatment of controversial and hard-to-understand-or-accept parts, have really helped him respond well to online inquiries (and accusations, and criticisms) he has encountered.  I pick him up from the MTC several times a week (he lives at home), and we chat about his day.  He has a constant stream of uplifting and hopeful stories about interacting with people.  He also has had quite a few colorful experiences with people who go on Mormon.org to argue with the missionaries, or to "bash."  Much of the time these folks try to use "shock" tactics with him, but they don't seem to phase him much because he has encountered many of these things before in family discussions, and because he studies quite a bit on his own, and because he sees these "shock tactics" for what they are.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I felt right at home in that little branch because, despite working on a master's degree in history at the time -- and having read and studied much in the intervening time -- I feel the same way. Living my life in accordance with what I have learnt as a member of the Church has brought me everything I need to know and, if necessary, would be enough to compensate for zero access to any text, past or present. The Lord in His wisdom makes sure that every Saint regardless of circumstances can know enough.

This is not to say that I haven't been blessed immensely -- I have! -- by what I've studied. I'm endlessly grateful for that opportunity and wish all had equal access. But I also know that, in the end, every Saint has access to enough.

Thank you for sharing!

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Our church instruction is not teaching history either but some people think it is for some reason. We use a lot of anecdotes and stories but they are used to illustrate a principle or doctrine.

I think this is a key point that too many fail to understand. As pertaining to our worship services, we teach (or are expected to teach) Church history not for its own sake but to give context to doctrinal principles and motivational instruction. Whenever our approach gets too academic (and I emphasize again that I’m talking here about Sabbath worship services) we run the risk of neglecting or departing from that end goal. 

[Kevin Christensen]

There is that business of "Ask, and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you."  (Matt 7:7), which I notice cannot properly be summarized by saying "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, for they shall be spoon-fed, and never caught off guard, and never, ever disappointed by anyone."

And there is the perspective of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, which has this:

Quote

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH

TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

 

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

 

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

 

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

which may or may not lead on to this:

Quote

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

 

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

 

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

 

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and   acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

 

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

 

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

The point of this being that the experience of finding out that not everything is just as you thought it was turns out to be a human experience, rather than an LDS community quirk.  And seen from that perspective, the personal grounds for feeling resentment and betrayal over a misguided sense of entitlement turn out to be built on sand.  Indeed, one of the things I have been learning in over a decade of participating in recovery is just how essential it is to remove the sense of entitlement, and replace it with humility and gratitude.  Entitlement being a beam in one's own eye that must be removed in order to see clearly.

And with respect to history changing, there is this:

Quote

For the moment, let us simply take it for granted that, to an extent unprecedented in other fields, both the laymen’s and the practitioners knowledge of science is based on textbooks and a few other types of literature derived from them. Textbooks, however, being pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science, have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science change. In short, they have to be rewritten in the aftermath of each scientific revolution, and once rewritten, they inevitably disguise not only the role, but the very existence of the revolutions that preceded them. Unless he has personally experienced a revolution in his own lifetime, the historical sense either of the fields, both the laymen’s and the practitioners knowledge of science is based on textbooks and a few other types of literature derived from them. Textbooks, however, being pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science, have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science change. In short, they have to be rewritten in the aftermath of each scientific revolution, and once rewritten, they inevitably disguise not only the role, but the very existence of the revolutions that preceded them. Unless he has personally experienced a revolution in his own lifetime, the historical sense either of the working scientist or the lay reader of textbook literature extends only to the outcome of the most recent revolutions in the field.

…For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the text’s paradigm problems. Partly by selection, and partly by distortion, scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific. No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are rewritten, science once again comes to seem as large cumulative.

Kuhn, 137-138, Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the chapter called "The Invisibility of Revolutions."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I was talking about growing up. A typical Sunday School lesson on Joseph Smith did not include the topic of polygamy. And, as mentioned, the issue of polygamy was brought up many times in church as I grew up. 

To note also, I find D&C 132 to have been given given in order to establish the eternal importance of marriage, not polygamy. 

Verses 1-3 disagree with you.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

Edited November 22, 2017 by JLHPROF