rcrocket wrote:Moniker wrote:I think it should be more proactive with teaching the history so no one is startled. And that's all.
On the issue of being startled about polygamy, and the obligation to teach the truth, I agree. For that reason, I was startled when I learned that Joseph Fielding Smith's Essentials in Church History taught that Joseph Smith had multiple wives.
I am also shocked that the Sesquicentennial Project's volume dedicated to the Nauvoo Era (Glenn Leonard, Nauvoo), although not exactly a Church publication started out as one and is published by BYU Press, goes into some detail about Joseph Smith's wives. I was really shocked and surprised that the Church of all folks, or at least BYU, would be so "proactive." Really, I was startled.
And then, there was the Church's 19th Century publication in the Deseret News of affidavits of former wives of Joseph Smith, offered to refute Emma's claim that Joseph didn't practice plural marriage. Come on -- the Deseret News? What was the Church thinking in making such disclosures?
And then there was the Church's historian, who in 1979 published a book used as a textbook at BYU and Institute classes. L. Arrington, The Mormon Experience. Talking all about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Dang it; how stupified I was by this disclosure too!!! Never mind the fact that the church authorized the publication of the Journal of Discourses where this is referenced repeatedly. What is the Church thinking? Damn it -- why all this need to astound and startle me?
Oh oh oh -- the Encylopedia of Mormonism, and its entry on Plural Marriage. Now, there is a publication with full Church sanction. How dumbfounded I was to be so startled about the teaching of Joseph Smith's wives. Gag; I'm going to vomit with all my startling revelations.
This is partial and part for Mr Crockett. It is all there and it is your fault if at 15 years old before you went on a mission you had not searched out BYU studies, dialogue and all the other resources and discovered all this before you served a mission, went to college, married in the temple and committed your all.
Same for investigators. They should do all their own due diligence.
Why should we expect the missionaries to teach anything but the basic faith promoting story? Why should we expect the Church manuals, the Church seminary lessons and so on to disclose anything that could cause doubts?
Any one disillusioned ove r what you found when you actually did take the time on your own it is your own damn fault.
But remember, the Church ask "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men." A mutual fund must disclose more to me when I put $2500 in in IRA than the LDS Church volunteers and teaches a new member or a youth growing up LDS before asking a total life commitment on their part.
Maybe I am just naïve but this seems just wrong. A great point is the Joseph Smith film and the Memorial building. As was noted on this thread, that film is designed to show on the best and most positive things about Joseph Smith. It is designed to iinvoke an emotional response and tears. When I saw it they passed out tissues before hand and said we would need them. And then when you could not help but love the one dimensional Joseph Smith that was portrayed you re told that is the spirit telling you he was indeed God's prophet. This is the sole goal of such productions, stories, books and seminary manuals. Create from bits of the history a faith promoting story. Is that really honest though?