Church's Increasing Candor Re: Its History - Saints, Vol. 2

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I’ve not heard anything like that, nor do I know what you mean by saying that he “changed the narrative.” 

But your post did not really respond to my point, which is that “facts” that are ostensibly true but that mislead because they lack clarifying context are as potentially harmful as an overt lie. Do you disagree with that? 

(bold mine)

https://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

Scott, in the link above is how the narrative changed, it might not have totally started with Brigham, not sure.

https://gospeltangents.com/

This morning I listened to the Gospel Tangents podcast #4 with Dr. Margaret Toscano, and she mentioned the change in wording after Joseph Smith died. Originally, it sounds like he wanted the women to hold the Priesthood, then when he is out of the picture they changed the wording. See in the intro below:

Margaret:  God was going to do this. He was going to transform the role of women in the church. He [Joseph Smith] says to the Relief Society, and as I read through the speeches carefully, I saw several really important things, the idea that God was going to make the women a kingdom of priests, that was one of them. Another one was that the Relief Society and I hope I can remember the language of this one, that he wanted to organize the Relief Society in the order of the priesthood. Now, you have to realize that when this later, in the History of the Church, and this started to happen, in like the 1840s and 50s after Joseph’s death, where these phenomenal things that he said to the Relief Society in Nauvoo were changed. The wording was changed so that the priesthood implications of this were all switched, so that the language was, “Oh, it’s not to the women”. When you read the teachings of the Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, the implication is that Joseph Smith is saying this to the Church, not to the women. The implication–and so when he says that the Relief Society is organized in the order of the priesthood, according to the order of the ancient priesthood, then it’s changed to they’re organized by the priesthood. I mean, that is significant. That is a very significant difference. It’s very interesting that—

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

https://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

Richard Bushman has objected to the misuse of his remarks.  The above link is an example of such misuse.

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Scott, in the link above is how the narrative changed, it might not have totally started with Brigham, not sure.

https://gospeltangents.com/

This morning I listened to the Gospel Tangents podcast #4 with Dr. Margaret Toscano, and she mentioned the change in wording after Joseph Smith died. Originally, it sounds like he wanted the women to hold the Priesthood, then when he is out of the picture they changed the wording. See in the intro below:

Margaret:  God was going to do this. He was going to transform the role of women in the church. He [Joseph Smith] says to the Relief Society, and as I read through the speeches carefully, I saw several really important things, the idea that God was going to make the women a kingdom of priests, that was one of them. Another one was that the Relief Society and I hope I can remember the language of this one, that he wanted to organize the Relief Society in the order of the priesthood. Now, you have to realize that when this later, in the History of the Church, and this started to happen, in like the 1840s and 50s after Joseph’s death, where these phenomenal things that he said to the Relief Society in Nauvoo were changed. The wording was changed so that the priesthood implications of this were all switched, so that the language was, “Oh, it’s not to the women”. When you read the teachings of the Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, the implication is that Joseph Smith is saying this to the Church, not to the women. The implication–and so when he says that the Relief Society is organized in the order of the priesthood, according to the order of the ancient priesthood, then it’s changed to they’re organized by the priesthood. I mean, that is significant. That is a very significant difference. It’s very interesting that—

I would be interested in Dr. Toscano's thoughts.  Has she published them anywhere?  I'd like to review whatever historical references/evidence she believes are relevant and probative.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2020 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Scott, in the link above is how the narrative changed, it might not have totally started with Brigham, not sure.

Just some thoughts to share.  The narrative is constantly changing in response to the environment.  Joseph was responding criticisms both from within and without and adjusting his revelations from the very start, this is why we have so many changes from 1833 to 1835 in the D&C.  Brigham had a lot to respond to and he changed the narratives as well and the change continues today.  Why else does the church implement a policy, call it revelation from Heaven and then reverse course three years later and call that revelation from Heaven.  Changing the narrative is an ongoing and I dare say eternal process.  

I don't fully blame any one person for all the hiding of history over the years, its somewhat human nature to want to keep the skeletons in the closet.  But I do think those people who knew things and then publicly put forward a different story show a degree of not telling the truth.  I think we certainly can do better, and one way the church could do better is to be open and honest about those mistakes and to learn to apologize and own up to problems.  Its not enough to just acknowledge problems in general.  Leaders have an opportunity to model a Christlike institutional repentance.  Currently they aren't doing that and I hope with time they will do it.  Mormon culture really could do a much better job on this topic.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What if we split the difference, recognizing that your point of view represents an entire school of philosophy, but still thinking that you're an old wacko?  Is that OK? 

Sounds like my wife.!

No seriously I've had 40 years to convert her, poor woman, and now she's got it!

I guess it's kind of like a virus.

But I've been thinking this way for 50 years so I guess I'm a carrier 

Thank God there's a few people I've actually helped. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Here's a link to George A. Smith's recounting of what he said while in southern Utah.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, if I may, I’d like to get your take on this recounting. It seems to me from this that Elder Smith did not incite the southern Utah Church members so much as finding them already incited with dread and indignation about Easterners coming to invade them and yet again perpetrate atrocities on them; and a resolve not to let it happen again. George A.  then channeled this defiance into a motivation for military readiness. 
 

If course, he could have been engaging in some self-serving spin here. We’re all human in that respect. 
 

Furthermore, with regard to Journal of Discourses, I’ve come to mistrust it’s accuracy, ever since I learned that research has shown  the transcriptions in some cases amount to loose paraphrases at best.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Here's a link to George A. Smith's recounting of what he said while in southern Utah.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, if I may, I’d like to get your take on this recounting. It seems to me from this that Elder Smith did not incite the southern Utah Church members so much as finding them already incited with dread and indignation about Easterners coming to invade them and yet again perpetrate atrocities on them; and a resolve not to let it happen again. George A.  then channeled this defiance into a motivation for military readiness. 
 

If course, he could have been engaging in some self-serving spin here. We’re all human in that respect. 
 

Furthermore, with regard to Journal of Discourses, I’ve come to mistrust it’s accuracy, ever since I learned that research has shown  the transcriptions in some cases amount to loose paraphrases at best.