Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[charity]

Koakaipo, I don't know if I am disagreeing with you or not. Interpretation, sure. But starting out with a thesis: Joseph Smith was a fraud, George Washington was a coward, Thomas Jefferson was a racist.

There was a study, and now I don't have the source at my fingertips, which looked at the statistical fact that most psychological studies were answered in the affirmative. It really is hard, once you have an idea in your mind, to frame questions without skewing them, to count all the evidence, not just what goes the way you want it to go, etc. And in a field where we are taking a few facts, and then interpreting them? What is going to be the outcome? I would not give it a lot of credibility.

[koakaipo]

Charity-As to how much to trust-I approach like a good consumer, and check out an author's creds and reviews before buying something. It's not some exact science, that's just the reality. But I don't think it's very random either and I think many historians understand the nature of their work and how to approach it in a way that is credible.

I honestly believe many folks in this field don't go into a field of study with some agenda. Maybe a deep interest for a particular study, but not necessarily an agenda. I was able to work under a couple great profs while in college who made me really respect their approach to research and interpretation and to their craft in general.

They went in to see what was out there in terms of their subject and from their began to see patterns or some sort of the connect the dot deal. It was that little side job that just sold me on my major, because it was so invigorating to watch a subject slowly come into focus and take on a life of its own. It's almost like having ghosts talk to you, and you kinda are just going along for the ride.

Let me give you a small example. For my senior paper, I had a firm notion that I would show how initial European perceptions of Hawaiian women as submissive mermaid types linger on today.But the more I did research, the less my intent materialized. Tahitian women with first contact were perceived as the submissive and sweet darlings of POlynesia, while Hawaiian women were ACTUALLY considered too assertive, sexually aggressive, physically capable and less deferential to European men.

And so, my paper became something totally new-the perceptual morphing of the Hawaiian female from a woman who was seen fighting side by side with her husband in battle and not knowing her "place" to the kitschy hula girl submissively dancing about having someone come back to her little grass shack. And I was just some college kid farting around at the time, and it was still basically impossible for me to ignore what I was finding.

[koakaipo]

PSCharity-My initial post wasn't directed to you by the way but more to the post regarding the "trauma" deal.

And you know I think people do start out with a thesis and hunch, but research tends to kick you into shape quickly. And I think sometimes it talks to the humanity found within all of us.

Like Jefferson being racist for instance. Because of his racist ideologies, many people argued that he would have never have had an affair with Sally Hemmings. And I remember thinking, when I heard this argument from one historian, "Duh!" I mean, ideology doesn't always go hand in hand with life and it's messy tendencies.

We don't go by our ideals most of the times. Humans are much more complicated than that. I have a "thing" for Jefferson actually, because although he did write that "all men are created equal," this did not describe his own life and culture. AND YET, folks found great inspiration in that idealized statement to change and overcome cultural and social and political obstacles that were stopping the ideal from becoming a reality. That's a beautiful thing to contribute, even if he didn't get it right personally.That's "life" to me-where we have these moments of inspiration and clarity, even if our life as a whole looks a lot more muddled and cloudy. I think history often speaks to that combination found in humanity.

[charity]

Koakaipo, Your experience into scholarly study sounds good. And I can only speak for the scholarship of psychological studies. At least, we psych types know how likely we are to put out junk.

But the Vogel thing? He stated himself that he started out rejecting the Book of Mormon as an historic document. Every fact he sees has to be twisted to get it to fit that proposition. If I had done that kind of thing on my thesis study, my advisor would have slapped me down so hard I would still be climbing out of the basement.

[Benjamin McGuire]

This is going to take me a while to get through all of the stuff here, so it may take me a bit to get caught up.

Matt Andrews wrote:

If you read from the middle of page 44 (Various Types of Cognitions) to the top of page 46 you will see that McCue does understand cognitive dissonance. In fact, his description is the same as the one Ben gave.

I have read a great deal of what Bob McCue has posted on the internet. He may quote things, he may say things, he doesn't understand what he is talking about. Anyone can parrot information without real comprehension. And Bob has repeatedly presented cognitive dissonance in an erroneous fashion.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

1. When I hear a member push aside an issue because "we just don't understand it, and the Lord will explain it to us in the next life," this tells me they are suffering from cognitive dissonance -- i.e., the member is faced with a conflict between one's belief and evidence.

And this just isn't the case. This doesn't resemble cognitive dissonance theory. This isn't evidence of cognitive dissonance. The fact that a member can "bury it" means quite simply that he has no cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory, as I pointed out, explains why the member can do this, and why the TBM has no cognitive dissonance. As I said, try reading real material on the theory as opposed to Bob.

3. It seemed like most, even uber-TBM's, were limited on ZLMB. I remember Joshua Skains and Scott Lloyd, both very TBM, complaining about the posting limits on them.

But Joshua, as an example, had enough issues with the management that he wasn't given free reign. On the other hand, Dan Peterson stopped posting, as did Bill Hamblin, and several other individuals. And it wasn't about their posting limit.

Ben

[Rollo Tomasi]

The fact that a member can "bury it" means quite simply that he has no cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory, as I pointed out, explains why the member can do this, and why the TBM has no cognitive dissonance.

You're incorrect. "Burying it" is just one example I gave of how faithful LDS deal with cognitive dissonance, but it is their cognitive dissonance that causes such action.

Example: a faithful member believes that Joseph was a prophet of God and that he did not personally practice polygamy (but that the practice started with BY in Utah); the member then discovers that Joseph did personally practice polygamy, and is floored by Joseph's marrying a 14-year old girl as well as other men's wives, among his 30-odd wives. These discoveries may lead the member to wonder whether Joseph committed adultery, which directly contradicts the member's belief that Joseph was a prophet of God and incapable of serious sin like adultery. Hence, a major conflict arises between that member's belief and the discovery of a different reality. Should the member continue with the Church and bear testimony of Joseph the Prophet, consistent with her prior long-held belief, or withdraw from the Church (or testimony) because the member fears Joseph was an adulterer and not inspired of God, at least when it came to polygamy (D&C 132)? This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, which can cause many members to bury the reality they've discovered in order to continue with the long-held belief.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Having read through all of this, I think it ironic that the major points which I tried to raise still haven't been addressed.

Rollo wants the church to have more disclosure about its history in its curriculum. I am reminded in this about a discussion I had with the departed beastie here in this forum, where beastie announced that her issues with the translation process of the Book of Mormon stemmed from the fact that it wasn't absolutely historically accurate. She noted this:

1) The primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convert people to the gospel.

2) Factual Historical Accuracy is the most significant element in conversion (influenced I would guess by the fact that it was an element in her de-conversion).

3) Therefore God would produce a text which was factually historically accurate - even at the expense of changing the text from what the authors originally wrote.

My major problem with this, of course, is that I don't believe that factually accurate historicity has anything to do with conversion (although it may well ahve something to do with de-conversion). And it is quite simple to point out that the fact that the Book of Mormon does not correlate well with our popular understanding of the history, yet we still convert, or that for Judaism and Christianity as a whole, who rely on a sacred text which has significant failures in terms of its factual historicity, and yet they continue to thrive, clearly implies that it is not factually accurate historicity which functions as the tool of conversion.

Historical Information is not the basis for strong testimonies. And it seems to me that those who are pushing for this kind of approach to the past (which isn't really even openess - it goes beyond that and seems to want to force this material onto the church - under the repeated mantra that it is for the good) are those who define their own faith and membership in ways that do not resemble the majority of the members of the faith.

As we become more and more distant from the historical events - both in terms of culture and in terms of social values, the events of the past will seem increasingly different from what we view as normative. If it isn't polygamy, it will be something else. I don't believe that teaching the history is going to be the solution that these individuals think it will be. It won't build testimony. Some will find it uninteresting, and it may, perhaps, contribute to a perspective that the church isn't meeting their needs or reaching out to them. Certainly, (at least according to some of these critics), what is the likelihood that our Sunday School teachers will even be prepared to teach these topics? And as I noted, if it isn't one issue that will trigger a persons crisis over ambiguity, it will be another, or another. It is the recognition of ambiguity that we need to help people with - not investigating every negative aspect of the history of the church and its leaders.

I think that these issues have very little place in our worship services - which should be focused more on building faith and testimony - on sacrifice and service. We can all pursue our own intellectual needs at our own pace outside of our worship services.

Ben

[charity]

Rollo - You are perseverating. If you can't drop the incorrect use of the term cognitive dissonance, you are going to lose any shred of credibility you have.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo wants the church to have more disclosure about its history in its curriculum.

Actually, my beef is not so much that the Church be more "forthcoming" on historical issues like polygamy, but that it be less deceptive (perhaps "misleading" is a better word) in how it downplays or uses clever wordplay iny glossing over such a major part of LDS history. I've given several examples above where I think the Church has employed misleading methods to avoid embarassing history, but here is a summary:

1. This year's Gospel Doctrine class (the subject of which is the D&C and Church history), specifically the manual's lesson about D&C 132, which relegates the very catalyst for this revelation (plural marriage) outside the main lesson and only as an "additional help" if a class member should raise the issue.

2. The booklet Our Heritage, given out to all members in this same Gospel Doctrine class, which first mentions plural marriage 50 years out of sequence, and even then uses clever wordplay so as not to admit that JS personally practiced polygamy, saying only that "some" in Nauvoo were involved in the practice.

3. The Church Almanac, which portrays Joseph as a monogamist in his brief president's bio by listing only Emma as his wife, and doing the same in the brief bios for other monogamous Church presidents, but remaining silent on any marriage in the bios for polygamous presidents.

4. The BY priesthood/RS manual, which made out Brigham as a monogamist by listing in the historical summary only his 2 legal marriages (his first wife died, then he married his second wife). In an apparent reaction to the public outcry about this, the subsequent manuals for other polygamous presidents (John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant) mention no marriages at all in the historical summary; however, the recent manuals for monogamist presidents (David McKay, Harold Lee) have gone back to listing their marriages in the historical summary.

I'd have less of a problem with the Church if it were completely silent on the issue; however, the above examples indicate to me that not only is the Church being less than forthcoming, but also deceptive and misleading in essentially whitewashing historical LDS polygamy and early Church leaders' involvement.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

You're incorrect. "Burying it" is just one example I gave of how faithful LDS deal with cognitive dissonance, but it is their cognitive dissonance that causes such action.

Listen -

I am not going to convince you apparently. But the theory is out there, and it is well explained. When a person is able to easily and quickly shrug off something that conflicts with their view, it is because there is such a credibility gap between the new cognition and their old system of cognitions, that the new cognition doesn't even rise to the level of cognitive dissonance. If no change in beliefs or actions comes as a result, then there was no cognitive dissonance.

But then we get to a different issue. Suppose the member has the cognition that polygamy started with Brigham Young, and then discovers Joseph Smith was a polygamist, then the Cognitive Dissonance is going to occur over these two competing notions. And unless there is some additional significance attached to this notion, there shouldn't be any problem with resolving this dissonance by making a change and accepting that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

But this isn't really what you are talking about. What you are really dealing with is a set of cognitions about a perception of what a prophet is and how a prophet should behave - compared with evidence about what the prophet was and how the prophet behaved. And this is something different - and not directly (as I point out) related to polygamy - which is probably just a single example. So it isn't the fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist which is the issue, it is the fact that Joseph doesn't behave in the way that you thought he should. And in this case, pushing these historical details on someone without any kind of context isn't going to help with the underlying issue.

But, now we deal with a different issue - one which you probably aren't familiar with. Suppose that the member had read the Book of Mormon, had prayed about it, and received a spiritual witness to its truth. Suppose also that the T had received a spiritual witness to the effect that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The member could, for example, decide that clearly prophets can in fact be sinners and have flaws. Or, they could decide that Joseph was a fallen prophet. Or, they might decide that these two issues can coexist without causing them any difficulty, and will all be cleared up at some future time. All three of these changes can be caused by the cognitive dissonance. But we have to note that the issue of polygamy isn't the cause of the dissonance. It is discovering that your views of what should be aren't founded in reality - the discovery of ambiguity. If the TBMs spiritual witness is strong enough, then it really doesn't matter what is uncovered about Joseph Smith - unless it rises to the same significance as the spiritual witness, it can be effectively ignored as irrelevant without causing cognitive dissonance (even though the cognitions may in fact be dissonant).

If the member is able to simply brush it off by suggesting that if they don't understand it now, it will be understandable later, then this is not evidence of cognitive dissonance - since it doesn't require them to change any of their beliefs or actions. It is in this fashion that I read your comments. Nor does the idea that Cognitive Dissonance helps the member do much here. A person cannot make the determination of a future and undemonstratable value (i.e. information in the next life) a part of the equation unless they truly believe in the next life and in the value.

If it really gets "buried" then it doesn't cause a change in beliefs (the fact that they reject the cognition as being of value - unless they are aware of this, and do it in a conscious fashion as a choice to hide - which I don't think would normally be the case - does not itself qualify as a change in beliefs or actions).

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

I've given several examples above where I think the Church has employed misleading methods to avoid embarassing history, but here is a summary:

Ok. But I don't have any problems with avoiding "embarassing" history. Why do you?

Obviously there is a disconnect (does it rise to the level of cognitive dissonance) over how the church is acting, and how you think the church should be acting.

Ben

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: Example: a faithful member believes that Joseph was a prophet of God and that he did not personally practice polygamy (but that the practice started with BY in Utah); the member then discovers that Joseph did personally practice polygamy, and is floored by Joseph's marrying a 14-year old girl as well as other men's wives, among his 30-odd wives. These discoveries may lead the member to wonder whether Joseph committed adultery, which directly contradicts the member's belief that Joseph was a prophet of God and incapable of serious sin like adultery. Hence, a major conflict arises between that member's belief and the discovery of a different reality. Should the member continue with the Church and bear testimony of Joseph the Prophet, consistent with her prior long-held belief, or withdraw from the Church (or testimony) because the member fears Joseph was an adulterer and not inspired of God, at least when it came to polygamy (D&C 132)? This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, which can cause many members to bury the reality they've discovered in order to continue with the long-held belief.

I understand the example; I've heard it before. In fact, I've seen this same sort of example from many critics of the Church--particularly those who are adamant that the Church "hides" its history.

The problem with the critics, however, is in the motivations assigned to perceived behaviors. (I'm including Rollo, for the sake of this example, in the critics' corner.) To recap the example:

1. Member believes JS is a prophet.

2. Member believes JS not a polygamist.

3. Member finds out JS was a polygamist.

4. Member finds out about young wife and polygyny.

5. Member wonders if JS is an adulterer.

6. Member believes prophets cannot have gross sin.

7. Member wonders if he/she should leave or lose testimony.

8. Member buries reality to hold to original beliefs.

I won't go into the myriad problems with the assumptions in this scenario. Instead, it is instructive to look at the motivations assigned by the critics. The first motivation is shown in point 5--JS would only engage in polygamy/polygyny if he wanted to engage in adultery. Is this the only motivation that was possible given the known data? Of course not. Is this selected assignation of motive negative or positive?

Second motivation assigned: In point 8, if member chooses original testimony over what the critic believes a rational person should choose, then the member is "burying reality" to hold onto that which obviously cannot be true. Is this the only motivation that was possible given the known data? Of course not. Is this selected assignation of motive negative or positive?

Rollo's scenario, widely touted by critics, is a prime example of the negativism that was cited by Ben earlier in this thread. It is also a prime example of the condescending manner in which critics treat decisions that do not agree with the ones they have taken, as cited by others in this thread.

I'm sure that others can address how the scenario is not really an example of cognitive dissonance or even an example of a response to cognitive dissonance. (Hint: not all choices among conflicting data represents a moment of cognitive dissonance, and not all choices that don't agree with the critics' evaluations represent cognitive dissonance management.)

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

And unless there is some additional significance attached to this notion, there shouldn't be any problem with resolving this dissonance by making a change and accepting that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.

...

But this isn't really what you are talking about. What you are really dealing with is a set of cognitions about a perception of what a prophet is and how a prophet should behave - compared with evidence about what the prophet was and how the prophet behaved.

...

But, now we deal with a different issue - one which you probably aren't familiar with.  Suppose that the member had read the Book of Mormon, had prayed about it, and received a spiritual witness to its truth.

...

All three of these changes can be caused by the cognitive dissonance.

...

If the TBMs spiritual witness is strong enough, then it really doesn't matter what is uncovered about Joseph Smith - unless it rises to the same significance as the spiritual witness, it can be effectively ignored as irrelevant without causing cognitive dissonance (even though the cognitions may in fact be dissonant).

...

If the member is able to simply brush it off by suggesting that if they don't understand it now, it will be understandable later, then this is not evidence of cognitive dissonance - since it doesn't require them to change any of their beliefs or actions.

1. I realize we are talking in circles, but let me just restate my position: it is cognitive dissonance in some form that causes faithful member to "bury" troubling and embarrassing questions about LDS history. In other words, the cognitive dissonance is telling them to act differently then they have before (i.e., faithfully following the Church, and then withdrawing from said church and testimony because they fear church and testimony are false or have been misrepresented); some react to this problem by "burying" the troubling issue so as to carry on as before with the original belief.

2. The "devil is in the details," of course, which is why it is not as simple as just accepting Joseph as a polygamist -- but also that he married a 14-year old girl, married 11 women already married to other men, married several young women who lived in his home, had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, etc. These are the issues many members find troubling, because they are indeed inconsistent with the saintly manner in which Joseph is portrayed in the Church today (especially during this bicentennial year of his birth). So I agree with you that a big part of the problem is how people think a prophet should live and act, the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" sorta thinking.

3. Don't presume I know nothing of spiritual witnesses.

4. I agree that "burying" something because of one's "spiritual witness" or "belief" or whatever you want to call it, is a way to avoid changing one's actions and resolving the congnitive dissonance. We see it all the time, and it is probably the favorite method employed believing members.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But I don't have any problems with avoiding "embarassing" history. Why do you?

It's one thing to "avoid," quite another to "mislead." That's my problem.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo's scenario, widely touted by critics, is a prime example of the negativism that was cited by Ben earlier in this thread. It is also a prime example of the condescending manner in which critics treat decisions that do not agree with the ones they have taken, as cited by others in this thread.

What you call "negativism" and "condescending," I call truth, fact and reality that have been, imo, intentionally misrepresented or downplayed to the membership masses. And I find that very unseemly.

[HiJolly]

Rollo's scenario, widely touted by critics, is a prime example of the negativism that was cited by Ben earlier in this thread. It is also a prime example of the condescending manner in which critics treat decisions that do not agree with the ones they have taken, as cited by others in this thread.

What you call "negativism" and "condescending," I call truth, fact and reality that have been, imo, intentionally misrepresented or downplayed to the membership masses. And I find that very unseemly.

Bummer for you. *I* would say you are twisted and the evidence lies in your posts. It's clear to see.

It's one thing to "avoid," quite another to "mislead." That's my problem. 

I think your 'problem' (and I'm quoting you) is much deeper than that. I see what you see. You have a big problem, as does Scottie and some others. I don't have a problem. I think the Church's approach is far better than saying nothing. And I think this is a very sound approach. Guess it just goes to show that you can't please everyone.

HiJolly

[USU78]

{snip}

And so, my paper became something totally new-the perceptual morphing of the Hawaiian female from a woman who was seen fighting side by side with her husband in battle and not knowing her "place" to the kitschy hula girl submissively dancing about having someone come back to her little grass shack. And I was just some college kid farting around at the time, and it was still basically impossible for me to ignore what I was finding.

There is more than merely a difference in degree between your discovery that perceptions of Hawai'ian women were different from reality . . . and between the Vogelian construct which must presume fraud or self-deception in/of JSJr. as its fundamental thesis and those who perforce accept JSJr. as exactly what he said he was.

Perception is, indeed, in the eyes of the beholder: Capital "T" Truth of the species that covers the JSJr. experience does not depend upon others' empirical perceptions for its actuality; it is sufficient in itself.

[Calm]

There are theories out there about this type of processing of information that could work for this and work better, Cognitive Dissonance doesn't in the way it is used and provides little information even when used properly (which I see rarely).

I wonder why there is such a fondness for Cognitive Dissonance as applied to LDS faith that Rollo and others are willing to bury their heads when confronted with conflicting facts.

[koakaipo]

Hi Charity-I honestly haven't read Vogel's book so I don't know about this specific instance. The only reason I chimed in mainly was because I have seen this happen often on this board where people use examples to show bad scholarship and I am not sure how that example is necessarily relevant as it seems to either be a basic summary in the author's own words or even like a benign sentence that merely sounds like segueway to a new paragraph sometimes. And of course I was also bored around midnight and it was either typing over here or watching reruns on cable.....

[koakaipo]

There is more than merely a difference in degree between your discovery that perceptions of Hawai'ian women were different from reality . . . and between the Vogelian construct which must presume fraud or self-deception in/of JSJr. as its fundamental thesis and those who perforce accept JSJr. as exactly what he said he was.

Perception is, indeed, in the eyes of the beholder: Capital "T" Truth of the species that covers the JSJr. experience does not depend upon others' empirical perceptions for its actuality; it is sufficient in itself.

First off, I was giving an example unrelated to Vogel. I was simply illustrating how someone even as casual a student as I was(beachtime took precedent over my studies half the time) experienced the regulating forces of research when trying to "prove" something. I still remember at the time believing I "could" have an agenda as a little jr. historian at college, and yet my mentoring professor always clipped my wings and reminded me that's not what history was for.

I don't know Vogel, haven't read his book, and so can't speak to how he necessarily approached his subject at all. Maybe he will come back and elaborate more about the process though which would be interesting.

[awyatt]

Rollo said: What you call "negativism" and "condescending," I call truth, fact and reality that have been, imo, intentionally misrepresented or downplayed to the membership masses. And I find that very unseemly.

Interesting. I said that assuming that JS is an adulterer is negative. You call that "truth, fact and reality." I say that characterizing a choice that Rollo (or the critics) don't agree with as "burying reality" is negative. You call that "truth, fact and reality." You don't see a problem with that? Hmmmm....

Face it, Rollo--you have a perception problem on this board. I am not talking about your perception of others (although I think a case could be made for that), but the perception that others have of you. You may want to characterize that as "personal attacks" or as "misrepresentation of your position," but the fact remains that it does exist. You are eager to point out that the Church is complicit in its own perception problems; are you equally willing to say that you bear at least some responsibility for others' misperceptions of you? If not, then why do you judge the Church harsher than you do yourself?

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

Bummer for you. *I* would say you are twisted and the evidence lies in your posts. It's clear to see.

...

You have a big problem, as does Scottie and some others. I don't have a problem.

How very open-minded of you.

[HiJolly]

Bummer for you.  *I* would say you are twisted and the evidence lies in your posts.  It's clear to see. 

...

You have a big problem, as does Scottie and some others.  I don't have a problem.

How very open-minded of you.

You don't know me! You are mis-judging me! you are so close-minded! Why can't I be more than you think I am? what....

Oh. Wait a minute - those are Rollo's lines...

Dang, Rollo, we need to rename you 'TIMEX' 'cause you take a lickin' and still keep tickin'. Guess that quote dates me, eh?

HiJolly

[Rollo Tomasi]

I said that assuming that JS is an adulterer is negative. You call that "truth, fact and reality." I say that characterizing a choice that Rollo (or the critics) don't agree with as "burying reality" is negative. You call that "truth, fact and reality."

...

Face it, Rollo--you have a perception problem on this board. I am not talking about your perception of others (although I think a case could be made for that), but the perception that others have of you.

...

You are eager to point out that the Church is complicit in its own perception problems; are you equally willing to say that you bear at least some responsibility for others' misperceptions of you?

1. I didn't realize your comment about "negativism" was directed at "adultery" -- that's not the "negative" I was talking about, but rather, the Church's general treatment of historical polygamy. Whether Joseph committed adultery is a conclusion, not a fact. I simply want the facts to be treated in an honest way, and let members reach their own conclusions.

2. We each have our own perceptions and opinions. I realize that my arguments generally are in a small minority here, which naturally seem to invite personal attacks, which is to be expected, I guess.

3. In all honesty, no one has really refuted the evidence above of the Church's intentional downplaying polygamy in its publications. And that has been the factual basis for many of my arguments in this regard. Folks may disagree, but I have yet to see a cogent argument proffered, based on the facts, that the Church has not intentionally downplayed or cleverly misled with respect to the topic of polygamy in the publications I cite above.